Ajay Lunia vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.—Identical question of law that cropped up in all the seven petitions is whether in a criminal case of trivial nature where warrant of arrest has already been issued against the accused, can he be exempted u/s 205 Cr.P.C.

Arguments in respect of all the instant petitions were heard analogously and they are disposed of by a common order.

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jaipur City in seven cases took cognizance of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) and issued summons against the accused petitioner on August 8, 1997. The learned Magistrate on December 10, 1997 after perusing the report of process server, issued bailable warrants and thereafter on January 3, 1998 the accused petitioner was ordered to be summoned through on-bailable warrants.

On Feb.24, 1998 the counsel for the accused appellant appeared before the Court of CJM and moved applications u/s 205 Cr.P.C. seeking exemption of the accused from personal appearance. Learned CJM dismissed the applications vide orders dated March 27,1998.

Against these orders that the accused petitioner has resorted present action for filing the miscellaneous petitions.

I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the impugned orders.

Admittedly the accused petitioner has not called in question the orders dated December 10, 1997 and January 3. 1995.

Principally I agree with the contention of Mr.R.N.Khandelwal learned counsel for the accused that in trivial criminal cases, personal appearance of the accused should be exempted as a rule but I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe the view that provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C. are applicable where warrant of arrest is issued against the accused. Where warrant has been issued against the accused, Section 205 Cr.P.C. does not apply. My opinion finds support from Poosi Vs Man Das, 1951 RLW 27, Kewal Krishna Vs State of Patiala, AIR 1954 Pepsu 36, Lekhram Agarwalla and others Vs Pannalal Agarwalla, AIR 1951 Ass 129, State Vs. Pir Mohd. Maqbool yalgaml and Others, . It is not necessary for me to discuss the case law cited by learned counsel.

As orders in respect of issuance of warrants have not been assailed by the accused petitioner, I have no option but to convert non-bailable warrant into bailable, warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- in each case, u/s 72 Cr.P.C.

I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of the learned CJM.

All the seven miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Two months time is granted to the accused petitioner to appear before the learned CJM Jaipur City and to submit his bail bonds. The accused therefore shall be granted exemption u/s 317 Cr.P.C. and his appearance shall not be insisted upon during the trial. The warrants of arrest issued against the accused petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of two months.