SANDIPAN CHAKRAVORTHY Vs. TAMIL NADU STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the accused to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur to entertain the petition to re-call the warrant under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C vide SR.No.410 of 2020 in STC.No.126 of 2017 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(2.) Mr.V.Karthick, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was one of the Directors of Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Limited, the petitioner was also nominated as the Occupier of the said Factory in terms of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was retired from the Directorship of the aforesaid factory on 30.09.2014 itself, but, thereafter, the respondent herein has filed a private complaint stating that the said company has violated certain provisions of Factories Act and based on the same, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur has taken the case on file in STC.No.126 of 2017 and issued summons. He further submitted that eventhough the summons was not served on the petitioner, on 06.06.2019, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur has issued bailable warrant and thereafter on 13.11.2019, he converted the same into non-bailable warrant. He further submitted that since the petitioner has already retired from the post of Directorship of the aforesaid company, he filed Crl.OP.No.33715 of 2019 before this Court to quash the proceedings against him and the same is pending. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C before the trial court on 08.01.2020 to re-call the said warrant, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, has returned the said application stating that since proclamation warrant was issued against the petitioner and the same is pending, the said petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that without serving the summons, the trial court has issued bailable warrant and subsequently, it was converted into non-bailable warrant and thereafter, passed an order that the petitioner as a 'proclaimed offender'. He further submitted that as per Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C, if the court finds that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, it may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. He further submitted that without following the said procedure, the trial court has ordered directly that the petitioner as a 'proclaimed offender'. He further submitted that as per Sub Section (4) of Section 82 of Cr.P.C., where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302 , 304 , 364 , 367 , 382 , 392 , 393 , 394 , 395 , 396 , 397 , 398 , 399 , 400 , 402 , 436 , 449 , 459 or 460 of IPC and such person failed to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the court may after making such inquiry, as it thinks fit, pronounced him as proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. He further submitted that the very purpose of issuing proclamation is to bring to the notice of the accused that his appearance is necessary in the particular case. He further submitted that in this case, since the accused has voluntarily filed a petition subjecting himself for the process of law, the trial court ought to have entertain the petition and pass order in accordance with law and hence, he prayed to allow this petition.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that only after issuing written proclamation under Section 83(1) of Cr.P.C the trial court can declare that the accused as a proclaimed offender by invoking the powers under Section 83(4) of Cr.P.C., and therefore, he submitted that he is leaving it to the discretion of the court.