PRADEEP Vs. KALLYANADAYINI SABHA (REGD), AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakkuda in Criminal Appeal No.680 of 2012, whereby the lower appellate court issued nonbailable warrant to the petitioner, who is the respondent in the appeal. It is submitted that the appeal is filed by the complainant invoking the proviso under Section 372 Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging an acquittal. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court, after hearing both sides, posted the case for pronouncing judgment. At that time, the Court issued non-bailable warrant to the petitioner, directing to secure his presence on 19.9.2017, to which date, the case is posted for pronouncing judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order passed by the court below is clearly illegal. According to him, the presence of the accused/petitioner can be insisted only on the appellate court finding that he is guilty for the offence involved in the appeal. Relying on Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 it is contended that if the lower appellate court finds the accused/petitioner guilty, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law. It is further contended by the learned counsel that only after entering a conviction, the petitioner can be compelled to appear before the court.