BARNABAS TIRKEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 6.1.2012 passed in Cr.Rev.No.263 of 2011, which had been preferred against the order dated 17.6.2004 whereby and whereunder the revision application was dismissed on account of being barred by limitation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had absolutely no knowledge that any case has been registered against him. However, on submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and then summon was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Without there being any service of summon, warrant of arrest bailable was first ordered to be issued against the petitioner and then non-bailable warrant was issued. Thereafter without there being any report regarding execution of warrant of arrest, impugned order dated 17.6.2004 was passed whereby and whereunder permanent warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner after the petitioner was declared permanent absconder and as such, those orders being quite bad are fit to be set aside.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 17.6.2004, revision application had been filed but the court below without taking into account the facts stated above, dismissed the revision application after holding that the application is barred by limitation and as such, that order suffers from illegality.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record including the order sheet annexed with this application, it does appear that without there being any service of summon, first warrant of arrest bailable and then non-bailable was issued and further without having report relating to execution of the warrant of arrest, the order dated 17.6.2004 has been passed whereby permanent warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner after the petitioner was declared absconder.