BABULAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order impugned dated 20.05.2009 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Gomia P.S. Case No. 30 of 1992, corresponding to T.R.No. 260A of 2008 by which the petitioner was declared absconder by issuing permanent warrant of arrest and closing the evidence of the prosecution under Section 299, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Learned Counsel Mr. Sahani at the outset submitted that the petitioner was admitted to bail at the very beginning and it would be evident from the order dated 24.01.2007, xerox copy of the certified copy of which has been annexed herewith, that the petitioner had left taking steps in this case since 29.05.2006 hence his bail bond was cancelled and arrest warrant was directed to be issued against him.

(3.) It is evident from the certified copy of the order dated 24.01.2007 that since then the petitioner did not appear to the Court in spite of the processes issued against him and ultimately the impugned order was passed. I find certain error in the impugned order wherein it was stated that the case was taken up for hearing under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.05.2009. The impugned order has got bearings that the A.P.P. made sub-mission in the Court that the witnesses would be produced after appearance of the accused persons hence the case was closed under Section 299, Code of Criminal Procedure and record was deposited. The provisions of law has been misconceived by the Trial Judge as the law has been laid down that even in absence of the accused. the evidence of the prosecution can be recorded under Section 299, Code of Criminal Procedure and then closing the evidence the record may be sent to the Record Room and that such order is curable.