Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is A.1 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011. Consequent on his failure to appear before the trial Court in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011, N.B.W came to be issued against him on 25.11.2011. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3190 of 2011 under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C to recall NBW issued against him.= The petitioner contended before the trial Court that he could not be present on 25.11.2011 due to his ill-health. The trial Court, having taken note of the fact that no documents have been placed on record to speak of his ill health, proceeded to dismiss the petition. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

CRLRC 223 / 2013

CRLRCSR 3217 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT RAMCHANDRA REDDY   VS SMT.G.AMARAVATHI & 2 OTHERS PET.ADV. : VENKAT REDDY THIPPARTHI RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: Other offences not covered above DISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.223 of 2013

ORDER:-

This revision is directed against the order dated 19.11.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3190 of 2012 in Crl.M.P.No.3348 of 2011 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kalwakurthy, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class dismissed the application filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is A.1 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011.  Consequent on his failure to appear before the trial Court in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011, N.B.W came to be issued against him on 25.11.2011.  The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.3190 of 2011 under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C to recall NBW issued against him. 

He pleaded in the petition that he fell ill and therefore he could not be present before the Court on 25.11.2011.  The respondent opposed the said application.  The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for his absence on 25.11.2011 and proceeded to dismiss the petition.  Hence this revision. 

The petitioner contended before the trial Court that he could not be present on 25.11.2011 due to his ill-health. 

The trial Court, having taken note of the fact that no documents have been placed on record to speak of his ill health, proceeded to dismiss the petition.  I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.  However the petitioner is at liberty to surrender himself before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalwakurthy 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.

___________________________

JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

7^th February, 2013

Vjl/Gm