Karnataka High Court
Mr J Harihara vs The Agricultural Officer And ... on 2 April, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE' DATED THIS THE 02% DAY OF APRIL 2012 oe _ THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA CRIMINAL PETIT!ON No. 1669/2012 | BETWEEN: Mr.J.Harihara . S/o J.Shrinivasa Bhat Aged about 46 Years... Employed as Manager (Quality Control) Mangalore Chi enix als & Fertilizers Ltd., Mangalore... ne .. Petitioner (By Sri R.Nataraj, Advocate) AND: The Agricultur al Office er and F ertilizer Inspectcr - Raitha Samparka.Kendra -- Kasaba Arkalagud Taluk Hassan District. ... Respondent ey Sri Vijaykumar Majage, HCGP) . This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., praying », to set aside the non bailable warrant issued against the _ _ petitioner in C.C.No.669/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Arkalagud. This petition coming on for admission this day, the >. Court made the following: ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by issuarice of non-. bailable warrant is before this court.
2. The petitioner is facing trial for contravention of fertilizer control order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 'and punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, i955.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court reper rted in AIR 2008 SC 251 (in the case of fader Mohan Goswami & Anr. -vs- State of Uttaranchal & ors.) to contend that before issuing .. non bailable wartant the court must be satisfied that :
"(i _ it is reasonable to believe that the person will not
- volutitarily appear in the court; or
(ii) The police authorities are unable to find the person to , Serve him with a Summon, or mo (iii) It is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.
Ne eee In the aforestated judgment the Supreme Ccurt "as, held:
"As far as possible, if the Court is of the os opinion that a summon will suffice iti getting. the. ; appearance of the accused in the. Court, the .-- common or the bailable warrants should be - preferred. The warrants either bailable or non- bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete' application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications, which' ensue. on issuance of warrants." a a
4. In the case-on hand, 'the learned trial judge has not recorded the reasons for issuance of non-bailable warrant. The order does. not disclose that summons issued to petitioner was served 'on petitioner and petitioner has been avoiding to appear before the trial court. 8B, The. learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner ig. ready to appear before the court below and _ obtairi bail. The submission is recorded. : a Tf the petitioner were to appear before the trial court oo and make an application under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C., the no dawennel mevncl trial court shall consider the same bearing in mind: the law laid down by Supreme Court in the aforestated decision.
6. The petition is disposed of with these observations. Sd/-
Np/-