THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7595 of 2009 DATED:17.09.2009 Between: A.Venkata Swamy .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad P.S.Banjara Hills .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7595 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. The petitioner is the fourth accused in C.C.No.106 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Due to his absence on the date of hearing on 07.07.2009, the trial Court had dismissed the application filed for condonation of his absence under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued a non-bailable warrant to secure his presence. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3446 of 2009 for recall of the warrant claiming to be suffering from Malaria on 07.07.2009 and to be taking bed rest as advised by the doctor. The learned Magistrate, who dismissed the earlier application due to the non-filing of any medical certificate, has directed to take summons to the doctor, who issued the medical certificate, and as the doctor was not produced by the petitioner, Crl.M.P.No.3446 of 2009 was also dismissed presuming that there is no truth in the contentions of the petitioner and that the petitioner and his counsel could not take any interest in producing the doctor to be examined as a witness. The petitioner now approaches this Court claiming that he had filed not only the medical certificate issued by the doctor, but also the Haematology Report confirming the physical ailment at the relevant time and claiming that he is co-operating for the disposal of the case and not indulging in any delay tactics. He requested for an opportunity to participate in the trial without the threat of the execution of the compulsive process and any consequential detention. Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner had assured that the petitioner will forthwith submit to the judicial process, if he is given an opportunity and absolutely had no intent of showing any disrespect or disobedience to the orders of the trial Court. Rules of Procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and the parties need not be punished with frightful results for any technical lapses or absence of diligence. It is not as though the petitioner has been indifferent and defiant to the proceedings before the Court, even on 07.07.2009, on which day the counsel had filed a petition under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to condone his absence. However, the learned presiding judge of the trial Court cannot be found fault for dismissing the application due to the absence of the petitioner on 07.07.2009. In Crl.M.P.No.3446 of 2009, the petitioner had in fact filed not only the medical certificate issued by Dr.K.V.Sunder Ram, but also the Haematology report issued by Pioneer Diagnostic Centre. While it is true that the petitioner was not able to produce the doctor in spite of three opportunities to examine the doctor as a witness, such failure to produce the doctor may not automatically suggest the Haematology report also to be not dependable. While, the order, dismissing Crl.M.P.No.3446 of 2009 due to dissatisfaction of the learned presiding judge with the reason mentioned in the petition for the absence on the part of the petitioner, is not without jurisdiction, in order to secure the ends of justice, the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to submit himself to the judicial process of the trial Court and participate in the further proceedings. Therefore, the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner in C.C.No.106 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, shall be kept in abeyance for 15 days from today and, in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court and continue to appear on all further dates of hearing without default. The trial Court may obtain appropriate personal bond from the petitioner for such appearance on all the dates of hearing and in default of the petitioner so appearing before the trial Court and submitting to the judicial process, the non-bailable warrant already issued shall be executed. In case of his appearance and execution of a personal bond, as required by the trial Court, the said non-bailable warrant shall be recalled. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is ordered. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th September 2009 KH