Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO.184 OF 2021
Nitin Sitaram Wankhede … Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
…
Mr. Sayaji D. Nangre for the Applicant.
Mr. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent-State.
JUDGMENT
2 Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, revision is taken up for final hearing.
3 This revision challenges the correctness, legality and propriety of the orders; one dated 17th September, 2021 issuing non-bailable warrant; second dated 27th September, 2021 by which the learned Judge declined to recall the order issuing non-bailable warrants and third; dated 8th October, 2021 rejecting applicant’s request to cancel the warrant by imposing the cost of Rs.1,000/-.
4 Admittedly, whilst applicant-accused was present before the Court on 17th September, 2021 in the morning session, co-accused was not present and thus, case was called out in the second session. At that time, applicant was not present. Thus, non-bailable warrant was issued. Applicant’s applications to recall the order issuing nonbailable warrants were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. One of the orders declining to cancel non-bailable warrant reads as under: “ Before the Court accused not produced from jail. Their advocate present. Rest accused absent. His advocate present. Application filed by Advocate Shri Ankushe for cancellation of warrant of accused no.4 (No plausible reasons given. Rejected)” It appears, next hearing date was 8th October, 2021. Roznama of this date shows, advocate of the applicant (Accused No.4) filed application for cancellation of warrant. It was rejected with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the orders stated above, this Revision Application is preferred.
5 Mr. Nangre, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Court was not justified in issuing non-bailable warrants and further committed an error by refusing to recall the orders issuing non-bailable warrants, in-as-much as on the scheduled date for hearing, applicant was present in the Court in the morning session and circumstances much less records and proceedings were not indicating that the applicant will not voluntarily appear.
6 In consideration of the facts of the case, in my view, the orders impugned, were unwarranted, having passed by overlooking the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject in hand in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal 2008 AIR (SC)
251. Paragraphs 52 and 53 of which read as under:
8 Needless to state that applicant shall mark his presence in the subject case unless his presence is exempted by the learned Court.