KATURI SREENIVASA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 8-8-2002 issuing NBW against the petitioner, who is cited as a witness in C.C. No. 62 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chirala is the subject matter of this petition.

(2.) One P. Bala Sankar Rao filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 4 for offences under Sections 365, 342 and 383 read with Section 34, IPC citing the petitioner and others as witnesses on his behalf, which was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. The same was registered as Crime No. 12 of 2001 by the Chirala II Town Police. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 365, 342 and 383 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against respondents 2 to 4 herein. The learned Magistrate posted the case for trial to 1-8-2002, after framing charges and issued summons to witnesses. Since the petitioner and others were not present on 8-8-2002 though they were served with summons, the learned Magistrate issued N.B. Ws. to the petitioner and other witnesses and posted the case to 16-8-2002. On 16-8-2002 some witnesses, to whom N.B.Ws., were issued, were present and were examined in chief, and the case was posted in 22-8-2002 since the counsel for the accused sought time for their cross-examination. Though the witnesses who were examined in chief filed petitions to recall the N.B.Ws. issued against them, the learned Magistrate dismissed those petitions and remanded them to judicial custody till 22-8-2002. Only after those witnesses filed applications for bail were they ordered to be released on their executing a personal bond for Rs. 2,000/- each, by the order dated 19-8-2002 of the learned Magistrate. Apprehending that he also may be sent to judicial remand, without recalling the N.B.W. if he were to attend Court to give evidence, petitioner filed this petition with a prayer to quash the order directing issuance of N.B.W. against him.

(3.) When the case came up for admission, on the basis of the averments in the petition. I have called for the remarks of the learned Magistrate, who by her letter dated 6-9-2002 stated that the petitioner and other witnesses, having received summons for the hearing on 1-8-2002, attended the Court on 1-8-2002 and filed a petition seeking adjournment and so she adjourned the case to 8-8-2002 and that on 8-8-2002 those witnesses, without attending Court, filed petitions seeking adjournment and so she issued N.B.Ws. to them, and that on 16-8-2002 five out of six witnesses to whom N.B.Ws. were issued were present in Court and filed petitions under Section 70(2) Cr. P.C. to recall the N.B.Ws. issued against them, on the ground that they could not attend the earlier hearing because they went to Ongole for the video coverage of Advocates Relay Hunger Strike, and as none of them are videographers, feeling that their absence was for not a valid reason, she dismissed their petitions for recalling N.B.Ws. and remanded them to judicial custody, and thereafter on their applications, she released them on bail on their personal bonds. From the remarks of the learned Magistrate, it is seen that in spite of the witnesses filing petitions to recall N.B.Ws. issued against them, she remanded them to judicial custody, dismissing the petitions to recall N.B.Ws., issued against them. They were in judicial remand for three days for their default in appearing before Court to give evidence.