P A SALEEM Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions coming on for hearing on Monday, the 27th day of June 1994, upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 3995/94 and of Mrs. S. Panneerselvam, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. Nos. 4810 to 4813 of 1994, and of Mr. George Charles, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4925 of 1994, and of Mr. G. Jeremiah, Advocate for the Petitioner in Cr1. O.P. Nos. 4934 and 4975 of 1994, and of Mr. K.P. Muthu Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4966 of 1994, and of Mr. B. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4968/ 94, and of Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr!. O.P. No. 4970/94 and of Mr. N. Pappiah, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4972/94 and of Mr. T. Baskaran, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4979/94 and of Mr. P. Punniyakotti, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4984/94, and of Mr. K. Sampathkumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4989/94, and of Mr. P. Rajendra, Advocate for the Petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 4990/94, 4992/94, 5136/94, and of Mr. C.V. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5007/94, 5029/94, and for Mr. R. Subramanian, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. 5011/94 and of Mr. M. Ajmalkhan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5032/94, and of Mr. K. Azhagarasan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5040/94, and of Mr. B. Raj Bahadur, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5066/94, and of Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5140/94; and of Mr. D. Selvaraj, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5143/94 and of Mr. Prakash Gokianey, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. 5152/94 and of Mr. S. Uthiasamy, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5 164/94, and of Mr. P. Anbarasan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5 167/94, and of Mr. A. Chandrasekar, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5207/ 94,5208/94 and of Mr. V. Balu, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 5209/94, and of Mrs. K.S. Rajagopalan, Advocate for the petitioner in Cr1. O.P. No. 52 14/94 and of Mr. R. Regupathi, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order: In these actions, non-bailable warrants issued by lower Courts concerned, under certain eventualities, as contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 - for short Code), for the arrest and production of the respective petitioners, facing trial for certain specified offences, are sought to be re-called, by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, straightaway, even without approaching the Courts concerned, which issued such warrants, for cancellation.

(2.) The entertainment of actions of this nature by this Court, it appear, is of recent origin and warrants issued by the Courts below had been recalled even without issuance of any notice whatever, by a direction to the respective persons to appear before the Courts concerned on a date to be specified, besides ordering suspension of execution of the same till such time. Of course, in some cases, reports of the Courts concerned have also been called for, before exercise of such power.

(3.) This sort of entertainment of such petitions and exercise of power, as revealed by the latest statistics furnished to this Court, seems to have encouraged frequent absence of petitioners- accused facing trial, which led to the prolongation of trials for years together, causing agonising situations, not only to the other co-accused, if any, but also to the witnesses for prosecution; thereby causing concern to the right of speed trial, a cherished goal enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (for short Constitution), in the administration of criminal justice system. Such an alarming situation chocked the con-science of this Court to make an investigation, as to whether such exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is legally permissible and justified. Such an investigation prima facie reveals that the power hitherto exercised for such a purpose was not in accordance with law. Consequently, without adopting the earlier procedure in all these actions, learned Counsel concerned were required to put forth their submissions as to the tenability or otherwise of such exercise of powers under Sections 482 of the Code, besides extending invitations to Members of the Barto participate in the discussion, since a decision on such a question is, of paramount importance in the administration of criminal justice system. Members of the Bar also responded nicely to such an invitation.