Vasupratha Constructions by its Proprietor v. Arulvel

The Appellate Court had returned the appeal papers with the following endorsements: i) Since Non Bailable Warrant is pending against the petitioner/accused, petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C is not maintainable in this Court. ii) Affidavit to be attached with petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. iii) Connected petition was returned, hence the Appeal Memorandum is also returned. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.14513 of 20244. Pendency of Non Bailable Warrant cannot be a bar for an Appellate Court to receive appeal filed under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. The presence of the accused will be necessary, in case, he seeks for recall of warrant or suspension of sentence. Even an absconding accused has a right to prefer appeal which is a right conferred under law, despite his abscondence. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner herein shall represent the appeal papers for suspension of sentence. He should appear in person and deposit 20% of the compensation amount and seek for suspension of sentence. On such deposit, the application for suspension of sentence to be considered and appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law. 5. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. 21.06.2024VvNote: The Registry is directed to return the original papers to enable the petitionersto represent it before the lower Appellate Court. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.14513 of 2024To1. The Metropolitan Magistrate-XXVI, Egmore 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.14513 of 2024Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.VvCrl.OP.No.14513 of 202421.06.20245/5