TIRUPATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 16.11.2012, pending on the file of the Sessions Court, Yadgir (SC.No.26/2010).

(2.) The records reveal that S.C.No.26/2010 was tried before the Sessions Court, Yadgir and the matter was posted for rendering the judgment on 16.11.2012. However, on that day, accused Nos.2 to 9 were absent. They filed application for exemption. The same was rejected, since the Sessions Court found that no valid reasons are assigned. The matter was posted on 17.11.2012. On that day also, accused Nos.2 to 9 were not present and therefore Non Bailable Warrants were issued against them. In view of the absence of accused Nos.2 to 9, the bail bonds executed by them were cancelled (because of violation of bail conditions) and that the bail bonds executed and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Hence, show-cause notice was issued to sureties of accused Nos.2 to 9. Further, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court was directed to lodge a complaint against accused Nos.2 to 9 for the offence punishable under Section 229-A of IPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate in view of the absence of accused Nos. 2 to 9. The judgment in Sessions Case was not pronounced either on 16.11.2012 or on 17.11.2012. Once again the matter was posted on 20.11.2012, warrants were once again issued against accused Nos.2 to 9, but they could not be traced. The matter was again adjourned to 22.11.2012, 23.11.2012 and to 26.11.2012. On that day, it seems, the Presiding Officer had to hand over the charge inasmuch as he was transferred. Therefore, the following order came to be passed on 26.11.2012:-

(3.) Sri Uploankar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sessions Court should not have instructed the Chief Adnministrative Officer to place the draft judgment before the succeeding Presiding Officer for his perusal, inasmuch as it is for the Presiding Officer who adores the seat of Sessions Court to hear the arguments afresh and pass the judgment of his own.