SEEMA RAJKUMAR BASANTANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) THE present Applicants are the husband and wife. The Applicant in Criminal Application No.3352/2009 is the Accused No. 2 whereas the Applicant in Criminal Application No.3325/2009 is the Accused No.3. The Respondent No.2 Andhra Bank filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the process came to be issued against the accused under Sections 409, 420 r/w 114 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed on 14.12.2004 and the order of issuance of process was passed on 21.12.2005. As the process could not be served on the present Applicants, the Complainant/Respondent No. 2 herein moved an application under Section 65 for pasting of summons at the conspicuous place at the residence of the Applicants. In 2005 the summons was pasted on the last known address of the Applicants and submitted the report to the Court in that regard. Inspite of effecting the substitute service, the Applicants did not appear before the Court. In November, 2005 the Respondent No.2 applied for issuance of non-bailable warrant, but the Court issued bailable warrant against both the Applicants. However, the bailable warrant could not be executed. Therefore, the Complainant made an application for issuance of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proclamation came to be issued against both the Applicants. At the time of execution of proclamation, the Applicants were not found at the given address. As the proclamation could not be executed the Applicants were declared as absconding. Hence, the Respondent No. 2 herein filed an application on 08.05.2006 for attachment of the property of the Accused. However, as a third party raised objection to the application for attachment of property, the said application came to be rejected.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Applicants assures this Court that the Applicants will co-operate for expeditious disposal of the complaint pending on the file of the learned Magistrate. As non appearance of the Applicants in the complaint case was on account of their absence from India and as they were not aware of the pendency of the complaint, they are entitled to be released on bail.