K PANDARINATHAN Vs. V RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges Annexure D endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent. A complaint was made by the 1st respondent with respect to an offence committed by the petitioner, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Annexure C is the summons issued to the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 2-5-1997. The petitioner alleges that he appeared on 2-5-1997, but the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned to 30-5-1997. On that day, the accused was present along with his counsel. It is seen that on that day the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent in the following manner : @@ "accused present. No bail petition filed, hence the accused is remanded to J. C. Call on 13-6-97. Sd/- II A. C. M. M. Bail petition filed, the accused is released on executing P. B. , and S. B. , of Rs. 10,000/ -. Surety not furnished, hence the accused is remanded to J. C. till 13-6-97. Sd/- II A. C. M. M. "@@

(2.) IT is this endorsement that is challenged by the petitioner in these proceedings.

(3.) IT is urged by the petitioner that the copy of the complaint was not furnished to him along with the summons. Normally, as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. , in a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. It means, there is a means for the accused to know what is the complaint arraigned against him what are the charges he is to face and whether it is a bailable or non-bailable offence alleged etc. , etc. This is also necessary because he should decide as to whether the summons is issued in a warrant case or summons case and to know the necessity to avail bail. As can be seen from the Code, S. 2 (w), Cr. P. C. , defines "summons case" and S. 2 (x) defines "warrant case". In a warrant case, the punishment involved is imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. The allegation made in the complaint as could be seen from the Lawyer Notice Annexures A and B is that the offence involves of an offence wherein the punishment of less than two years and therefore it is a summons case. Normally a warrant could not have been issued to the petitioner at the first instance in a given case. If that be the position, to secure the presence of the accused, there was no need to issue Annexure D order calling upon the petitioner to get himself enlarged on bail. That is totally unwarranted. In a summons case, if the accused appears in pursuance to the summons issued by the Court, and is present in the Court, there is no need for him to move a bail application or furnish personal Bond for his subsequent appearance. Such procedure is not contemplated under law.