MANISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. S. Kulshrestha, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A. G. A. and perused the materials on record.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been brought for quashing the order dated 15-7-1997 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Allahabad in crime case No. 6255/99 (case No. 990/96) whereby making the order for the registration and investigation of the case and the orders dated 18-1-2003 and 23- 5-2003 whereby issuing non- bailable warrants against the accused applicant. It has been contended by the accused applicant that in the aforesaid case the police after investigation submitted charge sheet on 27-7-1996 before the learned Magistrate who preferred to make the endorsement on 15-7-1997 for making the registration of the case on the basis of said charge sheet. THIS was also taken on the order sheet by putting the rubber seal on 15-7-1997 itself. Thereafter the case was transferred to some other Magistrate where on 30-4- 1998, 30-7-1998, 15-10-1998, 23-12-1999, 18-2-2000, 21-3-2000, 24-4-2000, 26-5-2001, 7-2-2002 and 17-8-2002 the order sheet was drawn and summons were issued afresh but those orders did not bear the signature of the presiding officer. It appears that the reader at his own had drawn the order sheet without placing the record before the learned Magistrate which is highly deplorable. Thereafter on 18-1- 2003 and 23-5-2003 non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused applicant. There is no mention on record about the taking of the cognizance.

(3.) IT may also be mentioned that the summons were ordered to be issued repeatedly but it is not clear from the order sheet that at any point of time the accused applicant was served with any summons. In the circumstances straightway issuing of non-bailable warrants against the accused applicant is not justified as was also held in the case of Raj Bahadur Srivastava v. State of U. P. , 1992 LLJ 281. IT has further been mentioned that the accused applicant was already admitted on bail at the police station and he also executed bonds. Under such circumstances unless the deliberate absence from the side of the accused applicant is construed, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to insist for fresh bail as was also held in the cases of Mohit Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Crl LJ 806 and Yaqoob and others v. State of U. P. and another, 2001 (2) JIC 38 (All) (LB) : 2001 (42) ACC 301. In the given circumstances the orders dated 18-1-2003 and 23-5-2003 for the issuance of the non- bailable warrants are hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to adopt proper procedure for taking cognizance of the offence and the accused applicant shall also furnish fresh bail bonds before the learned Magistrate for the offences for which the charge sheet has been submitted. Application is accordingly finally disposed of. Application disposed of. .