Kishore Gobindram Hassija Partner of Krishna Impex384/D, Dabolker WadiKalbadevi RoadMumbai 400 002 v. V.Subramani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.11.2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2010andM.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010Kishore Gobindram HassijaPartner of Krishna Impex384/D, Dabolker WadiKalbadevi RoadMumbai 400 002.. Petitioner/Accused 3VsV.Subramani.. Respondent/ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401Cr.P.C to call for the records in C.C.No.414 of 2003 and setaside the order dated 13.05.2008 passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate-I, Thirupur in Crl.M.P.No.3761/2008.For Petitioner: Mr.C.D.JohnsonFor Respondent: Mr.S.Baskar for M/s.Ram and Ram-----O R D E RThe submissions made by Mr.C.D.Johnson, learnedcounsel for the petitioner and by Mr.S.Baskar, learned counselrepresenting M/s.Ram and Ram, counsel on record for therespondent were heard. The materials available on record werealso perused.2. The petitioner in the criminal revision case is thethird accused in C.C.No.414/2003, which is pending on the fileof the Judicial Magistrate – I, Thiruppur. The said calendarcase came to be taken on file based on the complaint of therespondent herein against the petitioner herein and two otherpersons for an alleged offence under Section 138 of theNegotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said offence being abailable one, a summon was initially issued and on service ofsummons, the petitioner appeared in the trial court through hiscounsel on 30.06.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner filed anapplication under Section 205 Cr.P.C which was also allowed bythe trial court. When the calendar case stood posted for trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on 15.12.2003, the petitioner who figures as third accused inthe calendar case, filed a petition seeking discharge and thesame was dismissed by the trial court. 3. Following the dismissal of the said dischargepetition, the petitioner, invoking the inherent powers of theHigh Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, moved Criminal OriginalPetition No.25024/2004 on the file of this court for quashingthe complaint. This court, after hearing, dismissed the saidcriminal original petition with a direction to the trial courtto complete the trial and dispose of the calendar caseexpeditiously and at any cost, not later than six months fromthe date of the order of this court passed in the above saidcriminal original petition. The said order of this court cameto be passed on 22.12.2004. Even thereafter, the petitioner(accused No.3) avoided appearing before the trial court; hiscounsel also did not appear on his behalf and thereby the trialof the case was held up for about three more years. 4. On 24.09.2007, the trial court issued a warrant forhis arrest and production to face the trial. As the petitionerhad gone go Mumbai, the warrant was sent to L.T.Marg PoliceStation, Mumbai for execution. But the same was at the firstinstance returned with an endorsement that the warrant could notbe executed since the petitioner (A3) had gone to China.Subsequently, with the endorsement of the Commissioner ofPolice, Mumbai, on the warrant issued by the trial court, thepolice officials attached to L.T.Marg Police Station, Mumbaiwere able to arrest the petitioner on 19.04.2008 and producedhim before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai, whereupon he wasreleased on bail with a direction to appear before the trialcourt on 21.04.2008. Though the petitioner did appear in thetrial court on 21.04.2008, he also filed an application inCrl.M.P.No.3321/2008 for his release on bail under Section 436Cr.P.C, as his appearance was pursuant to the issuance ofWarrant. On the same day, the trial court passed an orderreleasing the petitioner on bail subject to four conditions,which are as follows:- " 1. The petitioner is ordered to be released onBail on his executing the bond for a sum ofRs.1,00,000/- together with 2 sureties for alikesome.2. The petitioner shall appear and sign beforethis court daily by 10.30 AM until furtherorders. 3. The petitioner shall surrender his passportbefore this court within 3 days from the date ofthis order. 4. The petitioner should surrender his son, the2nd accused herein and take steps to recall the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ warrant within 15 days as per the undertakinggiven by the counsel."5. The petitioner did not choose to challenge theorder imposing such conditions. On the other hand, acceptingthe said conditions, the petitioner executed a bond and gotreleased on bail subject to the above conditions. However,subsequent to such release, he did not comply with theconditions and again he failed to attend the court on thehearing dates, which prompted the respondent herein/complainantto file a petition under Section 446-A Cr.P.C for cancellationof bail. The same was taken on file by the trial court asCrl.M.P.No.3761/2008 and after hearing, the learned trial judgeallowed the petition and cancelled the bail granted to thepetitioner by the said court in its earlier order dated21.04.2008. The order of cancellation of bail dated 30.05.2008is the subject matter of challenge in the present criminalrevision case.6. The petitioner, who figures as accused No.3 in theabove said case had been successfully dragging on the case formore than seven years. At the first instance he made an attemptto have him discharged from the said criminal case by filing adischarge petition, which came to be dismissed. As a secondattempt he filed a quash petition before this court underSection 482 Cr.P.C which also came to be dismissed in 2004itself with a direction to the trial court to complete the trialwithin six months from the date of order of this court.Thereafter, the petitioner disappeared and he had to be broughtout of his hiding place in Mumbai by issuing a warrant andexecuting it through the police in Mumbai. The petitioner,after arrest in execution of the said warrant, was producedbefore a Magistrate in Mumbai, whereupon he was released withdirection to appear before the trial court on the next hearingdate, namely 21.04.2008. On 21.04.2008, the petitioner appearedbefore the trial court only in obedience to the warrant and theconsequent direction given by the Magistrate in Mumbai.Thereafter he had to move a bail application and the same wasallowed and he was released on bail subject to the abovementioned conditions. 7. Even though the offence is a bailable one, whenonce the accused misuses the liberty, the court can imposeconditions for his further release. Such course of action wasadopted by the learned trial court Magistrate. Even such anorder was not challenged by invoking the powers of the SessionsCourt or the High court under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. On theother hand, the petitioner was very much keen on his release onbail. Hence, without murmuring, he got him released on bail byexecuting a bond incorporating the above said conditions. But,once he was released on bail, he again showed his colour bydisappearing. Till date he is at large and his whereabouts arenot known. Under such circumstances alone the respondent had toapproach the trial court for an order cancelling the bail and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the trial court rightly passed an order cancelling the bailgranted to the petitioner. No defect or infirmity is found inthe said order of the learned trial Magistrate warrantinginterference by this court in exercise of its revisional power.There is no merit in this criminal revision case and the samedeserves to be dismissed.8. Accordingly, this criminal revision case isdismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitionsare also closed.asr/Sd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarCopy to1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tirupur.2.Do Through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.+ 1 cc to M/s. Ram & Ram, Advocate SR No.79916PKB(CO)SR/24.11.2010Crl.R.C.No.848 of 2008