CHANDRASEKAR PATIL Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice before admission was issued to the respondent and the respondent has also entered appearance through counsel. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides are heard.

(2.) The present criminal revision case has been filed questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai on 31.01.2011 dismissing Cr.M.P.No.239 of 2011 in STC No.496 of 2009 on the file of the said Judicial Magistrate. The said petition was filed for recalling a non-bailable warrant issued by the said court on 24.12.2010. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the submissions made on both sides, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not made out a case for recalling the non-bailable warrant and consequently, dismissed the said petition, namely Crl.M.P.No.239 of 2011 in STC No.496 of 2009, by the impugned order dated 31.01.2011.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, during his argument, has made an attempt to show that the case being one instituted on private complaint for a bailable offence, namely an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court ought not to have issued straightway a non-bailable warrant without issuing bailable warrant at the first instance. Of course when the accused fails to appear or evade summons in a summon's case involving a bailable offence, the court shall not issue a non- bailable warrant at the first instance. But the case will loose its character of bailable case once the bail conditions are violated. In the present case, the revision petitioner seems to have evaded service of summons for quite a long time and at last a bailable warrant was issued pursuant to which he surrendered and thereafter, on his petition under section 436 Cr.P.C, he was released on bail on his executing a bond with two sureties.