section 70(2) Cr.P.C. recall N.B.W = summons in C.C.No.221 of 2009 has been received by some relative and the said relative has not informed the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the trial court. As seen from the material placed on record, N.B.W. is pending since 2009 onwards. The trial court, having taken note of said fact, proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner under section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar. However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender himself before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahaboobnagar and move an application seeking for regular bail. In which event, the learned Magistrate has to consider the application on the same day as practicably as possible.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.313 of 2013

ORDER:-
          This revision is directed against the order dated 09.01.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2712 of 2012 in C.C.No.221 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Mahaboobnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 70(2) Cr.P.C. to recall N.B.W.
          The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.221 of 2009.  Consequent on his failure to appear before the court, N.B.W., came to be issued against him. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2712 of 2012 under section 70(2) Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahaboobnagar, to recall N.B.W. The learned Magistrate, having considered the facts and circumstances, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 09.01.2013.  The said order is assailed in this revision. 
          It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the summons in C.C.No.221 of 2009 has been received by some relative and the said relative has not informed the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the trial court.
          As seen from the material placed on record, N.B.W. is pending since 2009 onwards.  The trial court, having taken note of said fact, proceeded to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner under section 70(2) of Cr.P.C.  I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahaboobnagar.  However, the petitioner is at liberty to surrender himself before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mahaboobnagar and move an application seeking for regular bail. In which event, the learned Magistrate has to consider the application on the same day as practicably as possible.
          Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at admission stage.

________________________
Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

22nd February, 2013.
gm/vjl

Note : Issue copy by 25.02.2013.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515