Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 233 (AP)

Rottela Nagaseshu v. State Of A. P.

2000-03-28

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) 1. HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the orders dated 18-3-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, ananthapur under which the learned sessions Judge remanded the petitioner to judicial custody on the ground of his failure to appear in the Court on a date fixed for hearing the appeal pending before him. ( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 307 i. P. C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner filed an appeal against this conviction and sentence in Crl. Appeal 16 of 1999 on the file of the Sessions Judge, ananthapur. As stated above, when on a date of hearing the petitioner was absent the impugned order directing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner has been issued and in execution of the said warrant has been arrested and later remanded to custody. On the production of the petitioner in execution of non-bailable warrant, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:"remanded him to prison to undergo unexpired portion of sentence". ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the filing of the appeal, the sentence imposed against the petitioner was duly suspended. The petitioner was on bail during the trial along with other accused. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, firstly, appearance of the accused during the pendency of the appeal on each date of hearing was a not necessary as held by a judgment of this Court in the case of sudershan Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. State of a. P. . It is, however, urged that at any rate, the petitioner could not attend the Court on the concerned date of hearing because of his illness and as such the order of the Sessions judge may be quashed and petitioner may be directed to be released. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that, as observed in the judgment cited above, the insistence for the presence of the appellate-accused on each date of hearing during the appeal was really not necessary. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that, as observed in the judgment cited above, the insistence for the presence of the appellate-accused on each date of hearing during the appeal was really not necessary. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as the advocates were boycotting the Courts, no representation could be made on behalf of the petitioner for condoning his absence on that day. Taking all these circumstances into account, the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and his consequent remand to prison does not appear to be justified. Further, the order of the learned Sessions Judge remanding him to prison shows that he has been remanded to prison to undergo the unexpired portion of sentence. This order cannot be sustained. When the appeal itself is pending, the question of remaning the appellant for undergoing the unexpired portion of sentence would not arise. Whether the petitioner would be required to undergo any further period of imprisonment and if so to what extent could be ascertained only after the judgment in the appeal is delivered. Taking any view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the same terms on which he was released on bail during the trial. ( 6 ) THIS petition is accordingly allowed.