PRAMOD KUMAR PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point for consideration in this revision is whether a Judicial Officer in charge of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate can order issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against an status in a case pending in that Court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are with in a narrow. They may as stated thus :- The petitioner was facing trial in G.R. Case No. 253 of 1988 for an offence under Section 489, I.P.C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrates, Juypors and during that period he was on bail. After examination of some prosecution witnesses the said case has been adjourned to 3-12-1993 for further trial, in the meantime the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having been transferred. This Court fall vacant and one S. Ch. Tripathy, obviously a Judicial Officer remained in-charge of that Court. While he was incharge, on the aforesaid date of further trial i.e. 3-12-1993, the petitioner failed to appear, as alleged by him, on the ground of his sudden illness and, therefore, Mr. S. Ch. Tripathy in-charge of that Court passed the following order :-

(3.) It is contended by Mr. S. K. Nayak for the petitioner that since G.R. Case No. 253 of 1988 was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaypore, it was the Chief Judicial Magistrate alone who was competent to pass order for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused and not any Judicial Officer in-charge of that Court because the officer in-charge of the Court cannot be said to be the presiding officer of that Court who alone is empowered to order issuance of a non-bailable warrant of arrest against an accused for his default in appearing in Court. In support of his contention, he relies on Section 89 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') which is as under :- "89. Arrest on breach of bond for appearance - when any person who is bound by any bond taken under this Code to appear before a Court, does not appear, the officer presiding in such Court may issue a warrant directing that such person be arrested and produced before him." Mr. G. Kr. Mohanty (1) who has been appointed as amicus curiae is the Court on the point of law required to be adjudicated has also supported the contention raised by Mr. Nayak. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocates has submitted that in the absence of a presiding officer of a Court, the officer directed by the competent authority to remain in-charge of that Court is liable to be treated as presiding officer of that Court, but he is unable to cite any authority in support of his contention.