GUNASHEKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Counsel for the petitioner is absent.

(2.) The records disclose that a person by name Babu S/o. Raheem is arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 130 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 187 and 183 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The records further disclose that, the accused was absconding from appearance before the Court. For that reason, on 21-8-2013, the Court issued NBW against the accused. On 30-9-2013, a notice to surety was also ordered. Subsequently, the Court issued notice to the owner of the vehicle calling upon him to produce the absconding accused. Subsequently, the owner presented himself and prayed time to produce the accused, but he failed to do so. Therefore, NBW was issued to the owner, against which order the present petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Magistrate has lost the sight that the owner did not stand as surety for the appearance of the accused. The Court has taken the recourse of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and issued notice to surety of the accused to produce the accused. When a person has not executed any bond or stood as surety for the appearance of the accused, none else can be called upon to produce the accused except the police or the surety of the accused, unless he is bound by any orders of the Court or bonds executed by him. That was not the procedure being followed by the learned Magistrate and nowhere he mentioned under what authority he can issue notice to the owner and call upon the owner to produce the driver before the Court and in the absence of producing the accused, how the Court can issue NBW to the owner of the vehicle.