N T SUGUNAN Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the failure/omission of the police to execute a warrant issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner alleged that he is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Even after the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence have become final, it was complained that no action has been taken by the police to execute the warrant as directed by the learned Magistrate.

(2.) When the matter came up for admission on 05.03.2007, relying on the statements made in this Writ Petition, this Court directed that the warrant must be executed and if it is not executed, the officer must appear in person and explain why the warrant is not executed.

(3.) Today when the matter came up for hearing before this Court the officer is present. The learned Government Pleader submits that the warrant has already been executed. The entire amount has been deposited and there is no warrant pending in this case to execute. The learned counsel for the petitioner profusely only apologises for the incorrect facts given in the Writ Petition. He submits that only on account of incorrect impression such a Writ Petition happened to be filed. The counsel submits that leniency may be shown to the petitioner. The counsel partly owns responsibility of the incorrect details which have been included in the Writ Petition.