SATHYANARAYANAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, the petitioner is the same. It appears that the petitioner is one of the accused in the cases pending in the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II. Tiruchirapalli. It is stated that the petitioner is from Nagapattinam, and he had engaged a counsel to defend him in the cases. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was posted on 7th March, 1988, and on that date, the petitioner was not in a position to attend the court due to ill health, and in that connection, he sent a telegram to his advocate at Tiruchirapalli, but due to strike by the Posts and Telegraphs employees, the telegram had not been received in time by the concerned advocate, and in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has ordered the issue of non-bailable warrant in all the cases. Hence these are petitions to recall non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner.

(2.) The telegram alleged to have been sent by the petitioner addressed to the counsel Sri R. Sridharan was placed before me, and it reads that the petitioner was suffering from fever and unable to travel. When questioned, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that this telegram was handed over to the petitioner subsequently when he went to Tiruchirapalli, and met the counsel on 20th March, 1988. These petitions had been filed on 24th March, 1988 in this court.

(3.) I really do not understand as to why the petitioner should all the way rush to Madras and file similar petitions in this court. When asked about it, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner appears and files similar petitions in the trial court, the trial court is likely to remand him for a few days and in such circumstances, he had been advised to tile these petitions in this court. Representations of such nature are being made most often in petitions of this nature whenever they are filed in this court praying to recall non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court. To some extent, I feel the trial courts are also to be blamed for such petitions being filed in this court straightway without approaching the trial courts concerned. Whenever accused persons fail to appear during one of the hearings in the cases and when the counsel representing them also fail to appear or fail to tile petitions seeking condonation of the absence of the accused concerned, non-bailable warrants are issued. No doubt, there is nothing wrong in the issue of such non- bailable warrants. But when the concerned accused persons appear before the same trial court and file petitions explaining the reasons for their non-appearance, It is for the trial court to consider such petitions properly without adjourning the petitions and remanding the accused concerned to a future day which may unnecessarily put the accused in prison for a few days while they had been already released on bail. The trial courts should properly consider such petitions on the same date and pass suitable orders. It is a matter for the court and the accused concerned, about which courts are aware of and in such circumstances, the court need not wait for the representations to be made by the concerned Assistant Public Prosecutors or the police.