BHAGIRATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused of offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. They were regularly appearing in court for two years and on 19 -1 -1988 they were absent and their counsel was also absent and hence, their bail bonds were forfeited. Thereafter, after some times, the date of which is not known they moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar giving the reasons on account of which they could not appear on 19 -1 -1988 and requested for the cancellation of the warrants issued for their arrest they were prepared to furnish fresh bail and bonds. This application has been rejected by the learned Session Judge, Sikar vide order dated 18 -11 -1988 and the petitioners have now moved this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(2.) IT may be mentioned that the petitioners gave out before the trial court that on 19 1 -1988, there was the Teeka Ceremony of the grand daughter of petitioner Bhagirath and for this reason they could not appear before the trial court and for some reasons the counsel for the petitioners also did not appear. They did not move bail application for some time because, there was lawyers' strike. The petitioners could not surrender thereafter because they would have been arrested. So they moved for the cancellation of the warrants issued against them.

(3.) IN the case of Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the matter came up before this court because the Magistrate took the view that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest once it is issued by him Referring to Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. it was held that every warrant of arrest is to remain in force until it is cancelled by the court which issued it or until it is executed. Referring to Section 447 Cr.P.C. it was held that the Magistrate is empowered to demand a fresh surety in accordance of the demand of earlier order.