AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
This Criminal Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) is filed seeking quashment of the order dated 05.03.2026 issuing Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) to the Petitioner in Case No. SC. Spl/78/2023 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge For Trial of Cases under SCs & STs(PoA) Act-cum-X Additional District Court, Rajamahendravaram.
Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G. Sai Lochan, learned counsel for the Petitioner on record and Sri M. Lakshminarayana, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Smt.K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
Perused the material on record.
The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 in Crime No.195 of 2022 of Sarpavaram Police Station. A supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 114 and 506 IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989, as amended by Act No.1 of 2016, before the Special Court for SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned Special Judge, after receiving the supplementary charge sheet, initially took cognizance of the offences and ordered issuance of summons to Accused No.2, as reflected in the e-Courts proceedings dated 05.03.2026, and posted the matter to 30.03.2026. It is further submitted that within a few hours after uploading the proceedings on the e-Courts portal, it was again reflected that a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) had been ordered against the absconding Accused No.2 for her production on execution, and the matter was listed on 30.03.2026. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that there was a further change in the proceedings sheet uploaded on the e-Courts portal, indicating that the purpose of adjournment was for issuance of Bailable Warrants/Non-Bailable Warrants.
The learned Senior Counsel would contend that it appears the learned Special Judge initially intended to issue summons to the Petitioner/A.2, but later changed the decision and ordered issuance of NBW for her production, posting the matter to 30.03.2026. Copies of the proceedings sheets uploaded on the e-Courts portal were placed on record for the perusal of the Court.
The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, vehemently opposed the Petition and submitted that the supplementary charge sheet clearly mentions the conduct of the Petitioner, stating that the investigating agency could not trace her whereabouts despite sincere efforts made to produce her before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that the supplementary charge sheet reveals that despite repeated attempts, including visits to her non-residential address and other suspected locations through reliable sources, the Petitioner has been absconding and deliberately evading arrest. Due to the same, the supplementary charge sheet was filed stating that the Petitioner was not available and is absconding. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned Special Judge issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) to secure the presence of the Petitioner/A.2 for the purpose of trial proceedings. It is also contended that merely because of the mistake committed by the junior staff member of the Special Court while uploading the proceedings sheet in the e-Courts portal, the Petitioner/A.2 is not entitled to seek quashment of the impugned order.
Learned Senior counsel for the de facto complainant while sailing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the State, further submitted that Court has every authority to issue Non-Bailable Warrant against the Accused, as the supplementary chargesheet clearly revealed her conduct of absconding.
In reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. It is contended that when the investigating agency issued a notice to the Petitioner treating her as a witness, she challenged the said notice by filing W.P. No.24362 of 2022 before this Court, as the date of appearance mentioned in the said notice had already expired. The said writ petition is still pending for adjudication. The learned Senior Counsel finally prayed that the Petitioner may be permitted to appear before the Trial Court on 30.03.2026, as she is ready and willing to appear before the Court and face the proceedings.
In view of the discrepancy in the proceedings sheet uploaded on the e-Courts portal, this Court called for a report from the learned Special Judge to clarify the confusion. The learned Special Judge submitted a report stating that a junior staff member had entered the case proceedings in the e-Courts portal. Upon verification, the Special Judge found that the proceedings had been incorrectly uploaded as issuance of summons instead of NBW against the absconding Accused No.2. The concerned staff member was warned to be careful in the future and was instructed to rectify the mistake in the e-Courts portal. While correcting the entry, the staff member again failed to change the case purpose field, which continued to reflect “summons.” Later, on the same day, before closing the e-Courts portal, the staff member noticed the mistake and rectified the entry to reflect issuance of NBW before the close of office hours. The report of the learned Special Judge further indicates that cognizance was taken against the Petitioner/A.2 in SC Spl. No.78 of 2023 and NBW was issued against her and that the confusion arose due to an inadvertent mistake committed by the junior staff member while uploading the proceedings, which was subsequently rectified.
The original proceedings sheet was also called for by this Court, which shows that the Special Court had ordered issuance of NBW against the absconding Accused No.2 for her production on 30.03.2026 upon execution of the warrant.
Be that as it may, the learned Special Judge has not denied that different proceedings sheets were uploaded at different stages at one stage reflecting that the Court had ordered issuance of summons, and at another stage reflecting that the Court had ordered issuance of NBW against the Petitioner/A.2. There is no dispute regarding the authority of the Court to issue summons, Bailable Warrants, or Non-Bailable Warrants to secure the presence of a person who has been arrayed as an accused in a supplementary charge sheet. This is not a case where the Investigating Officer has merely filed the supplementary charge sheet and is attempting to apprehend the Petitioner thereafter. The supplementary charge sheet itself was filed showing the Petitioner as absconding, as she was not available despite the efforts of the investigating agency. Further, this is a case where the Court has already taken cognizance of the offences against the Petitioner/A.2, as stated above.
Needless to state, when the Court proposes to issue NBW against a person newly added as an accused in the supplementary charge sheet, reasons must be recorded. The impugned order indicates that since the individual was shown as absconding, NBW was issued. At this juncture, it is also relevant to refer to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.2260 of 2022 dated 20.02.2026, wherein the appeal preferred by Accused No.1 against the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissing his plea for grant of default bail was considered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court fixed a timeline and specifically directed that the trial must be concluded by 30.11.2026. Directions were also issued for monitoring the ongoing trial by the respective Administrative Judge. The order further indicates that if any further investigation is required, the same shall be completed by 31.03.2026. In the present case, the learned Special Judge ordered execution of NBW by 30.03.2026, and the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the said order. When NBW has been issued against her, the Petitioner may surrender before the learned Special Judge even before 30.03.2026 and seek recall of the warrant. The learned Special Judge may then take an appropriate decision either to remand the Petitioner/A.2 to judicial custody or to release her on bail upon obtaining necessary sureties to secure her presence for the purpose of trial.
It is also a matter of record that the Petitioner never appeared before the Investigating Officer in the capacity of a witness. She is now arrayed as an accused. The interrogation of an accused by the investigating agency is part of the investigative prerogative, and such examination may be helpful both to the prosecution as well as to the accused. The Petitioner may explain to the investigating agency the circumstances relating to the incriminating material collected during the investigation, as it is the duty of the investigating agency to gather material during the course of investigation and place it before the Court for the administration of justice. Examination of the Petitioner by the investigating agency may therefore assist both the prosecution and the defence.
The manner in which the proceedings were reflected on the e-Courts portal at different stages gave rise to this avoidable confusion. The learned Special Judge has not denied that different proceedings sheets were uploaded on the e-Courts portal at different stages, at one stage reflecting issuance of summons and at another stage reflecting issuance of NBW against the Petitioner/A.2. Though an explanation has been offered stating that the discrepancy occurred due to an inadvertent mistake committed by a junior staff member while uploading the proceedings, this Court is constrained to observe that such lapses in the recording and uploading of judicial proceedings should not occur in such a casual manner. Accuracy and diligence in maintaining court records are essential for the sound administration of justice. Carelessness in these matters, particularly in issues involving personal liberty is against rule of law. Even inadvertent errors reflecting in judicial orders may create avoidable confusion and undermine the confidence of the public. Therefore, the Courts must always ensure that the proceedings are recorded and uploaded with utmost care and responsibility.
In that view of the matter in the case on hand, though this Court does not find any reason for quashing of the impugned proceedings, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.03.2026 at 10:00 A.M. The Investigating Officer shall examine her, if necessary, till 5:00 P.M. on the said day. Depending upon the necessity and in accordance with the instructions of the Investigating Officer, the Petitioner/A.2 shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer as required until 30.03.2026. The Petitioner/A.2 shall also appear before the Trial Court on 30.03.2026. It is made clear that if any information or material is collected during the course of such examination, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to place the same before the Special Court on or before 31.03.2026. The learned Special Judge may thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law to secure the presence of the Petitioner/A.2 for the purpose of trial.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.