VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS Petition under Section 482 seeks to quash the order dated 6-9-2000 of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, secunderabad, in C. C. No. 666/2000, by which the application filed on behalf of the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 and 2) under section 70 (2) Cr. P. C. for recalling non-Bailable Warrants issued by the Court on 6-9-2000 was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE 1st petitioner is a Company and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. Both of them were proceeded against for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act as A-1 and A-2 respectively. Summons was sent by registered post to the accused. They were returned with postal endorsement "not claimed". On this, the learned Magistrate drew an inference that the petitioners/accused were avoiding the summons and accordingly directed Non- bailable Warrants to be issued. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application under Section 70 (2) Cr. P. C. , for recalling the Non-Bailable Warrants. It was firstly stated that the petitioners did not receive the registered covers and in fact the postman did not approach them with the registered covers. It is further stated that the date on which the postman made the endorsement happened to be Saturday on which day the office of the 1st petitioner- company works till 1-00 p. m. only. The petition also mentions that the accused are prepared to undertake to appear before the court on the next date of hearing. It is also stated that the 2nd petitioner was bedridden. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate refused to recall the Non-Bailable Warrants on the ground that the petitioners were not present and that they have not executed bonds earlier. The learned Magistrate thought that the judgment of this Court wherein it was held that for recalling Non-Bailable warrants presence of the accused was not necessary need not be followed inasmuch as bonds were not executed earlier. ( 4 ) IT is pertinent to point out that the postal endorsement "not claimed" without anything further does not lead to an inevitable inference that the accused have refused to receive the covers. ( 4 ) IT is pertinent to point out that the postal endorsement "not claimed" without anything further does not lead to an inevitable inference that the accused have refused to receive the covers. The failure to claim the covers might be for any reason and when the petitioners have specifically represented to the Court that in this case the failure to receive the covers might be for the reason that the office, on that particular day when the postman sought to deliver the covers being a Saturday, their office worked only till 1-00 p. m. , the learned Magistrate did not think it proper to express any opinion on this aspect. His deed (sic?) to presume that the accused deliberately refused to receive the summons is unjustified and is not based on any material. The logic of the learned magistrate that because the accused had not executed any bonds earlier, hence it was not possible to recall Non-Bailable Warrants on a petition filed under Section 70 (2) Cr. P. C, is difficult to be accepted. Considering the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioners is a bailable offence and the material on record did not disclose that the petitioners deliberately avoided complying with the summons in spite of service of summons, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate declining to recall the non-Bailable Warrants, is absolutely unjustified. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in the interest of justice, the order of the learned Magistrate is quashed and the Non-Bailable Warrants shall stand cancelled. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing and on such appearance they shall be bound over on such terms, as the learned magistrate considers appropriate. The petition allowed.