ADITYA INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') was lodged by respondent No. 2 through its proprietor Radhey Shyam Katta. The trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence summoned the accused-petitioner and when the petitioner refused to surrender in compliance of the summon issued, a bailable warrant was issued. Bailable warrants were issued many times but the petitioner did not surrender before the Court then a warrant for his arrest was issued. Then the petitioner submitted an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting the the arrest warrant into bailable warrant. The application so moved by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 9.5.2005. An unsuccessful revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur by order dated 21.5.2005. Feeling aggrieved of the orders passed by the Courts below the petitioner has filed the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The impugned orders reveal that the petitioner was initially summoned through summons and when he failed to appear before the Court he was summoned through bailable warrant. Bailable warrants were issued many a times but the presence of the petitioner could not be secured then arrest warrant was issued securing his presence. Code of Criminal Procedure provides procedure for securing presence of the accused on the basis of the gravity of the offence. In the instant case taking into consideration the gravity of the offence at the first instance the petitioner was summoned through summon but when he failed to appear in the Court in compliance of the summon, bailable warrants were issued for securing his presence in the Court but when the petitioner failed to appear before the Court, warrant of arrest was issued securing his presence in the Court. It is true that looking to the nature and gravity of the offence arrest warrant should not be issued at the first instance but in the instant case this is not the position as in the instant case the trial Court has exhausted the three modes available to it under the Code of Criminal Procedure one by one. Even before this Court, the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any reason or ground for non-appearance of the petitioner in the trial Court and for converting the arrest warrant into bailable warrant. under Section 70 Cr.P.C. warrant of arrest can either be executed or cancelled and none of the conditions is available to the petitioner as till date neither the warrant of arrest has been executed nor has been cancelled. Since there was no ground existed for converting the warrant of arrest into bailable warrant, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed no error or illegality while rejecting the application of the petitioner and so also the revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition.