STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the State in the following backgrounds.

(2.) THE respondent was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The Court had taken cognizance and directed summons to be issued to the accused. The summons was unserved. The Court had then directed non bailable warrant to be issued repeatedly and the same not having been executed, by an order dated 26.09.2008, the Court had recorded that non bailable warrant issued against the accused had been returned unexecuted with a report that the accused has gone to Bangalore for treatment and though enough opportunity was granted to the concerned police, they have failed to execute the warrant and has recorded that at the risk of concerned police, the case is closed. It is this order of the Court and the manner in which the proceedings has been set up has sought to be questioned in the present petition.

(3.) APPARENTLY , the Court below has complied with Sections 87 and 88 and though the rule refers to Section 512, (apparently, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and which corresponds to Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. Given the circumstances, the further procedure prescribed is that in the circumstances such as in the present case on hand, the Magistrate was required to report the case for the orders of the Sessions Judge who in turn would have decided as to the further course of removing the name of the accused from the Register of Criminal Cases and direct that the case be entered in the Register of Long Pending Cases. This is the procedure which was required to be followed and the Court below having straightaway directed that the case be closed is not contemplated and is not in accordance with the rule.