A. C. KABBIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under section 482, Cr. P. C. , the accused No. 2 in c. C. No. 1105/95 on the file of the Civil judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC-II Court, Hassan, has challenged certain orders of the Trial court issuing NBW and proclamation and attachment of property. ( 2 ) THE prosecution papers show that at about 6. 45 p. m. on 21-8-1992, the Revenue authorities seized a lorry bearing No. KA- 04/2222 suspecting that granite stones were being transported in that lorry illegally; and directed the driver (accused No. l) not to remove the lorry from the spot until further orders. It is alleged that despite such direction, the said lorry was taken away by the driver without permission. Subsequently, he was apprehended and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him and two others including the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC read with rule 25 (1) and (2) of K. M. M. C. Rules, 1969. In the charge-sheet, the petitioner herein and the accused No. 3 have been shown as absconding accused and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ordered for issuing NBW against these accused. It is stated that despite the efforts of the Police, the accused No. 2 was not apprehended and as further step, proclamation and also warrant of attachment of property were issued to compel his appearance before the Court. It is those orders, which have been challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) CONTENDING that he was not absconding and that he came to know about the pendency of these proceedings only after the publication of the proclamation and that non-service of process on him earlier was due to insufficient address given in the charge-sheet and the wrong description of his name, the accused No. 2 has filed the present petition praying that relevant orders directing issuance of NBW, proclamation and attachment of properties be quashed. ( 4 ) SRI R. B. Contractor, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even in cases, where an accused has been shown as absconding, if the Court intends to issue nbw instead of summons, it shall record reason and that in the present case, where without recording reasons, but relying only on the description of the accused in the charge-sheet, NBW having been issued, it is bad in law. In this regard, he places reliance on an unreported order of this Court in the case of K. M. Nagaraj v. State of karnataka (Crl. P. No. 2392/2003 decided on 25-7-2003) wherein on the ground that reasons for issuance of NBW instead of summons had not been recorded by the learned magistrate, the order for issuing NBW and subsequent orders were quashed. ( 5 ) REPLYING to that argument, Sri P. M. Nawaz, learned High Court Government pleader submits that since the petitioner was absconding in a warrant case, there was no option to the Court but to issue NBW on the basis of the description in the charge- sheet. He further argues that, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the learned Magistrate in directing publication of proclamation, followed by attachment of property of the accused, when NBW could not be executed for non-availability of the accused. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 87 (a) of Cr. P. C. , which reads as follows :"87. Issue of warrant in lieu of, or in addition to, summons. A Court may, in any case in which it is empowered by this Code to issue a summons for the appearance of any person, issue, after recording its reasons in writing, a warrant for his arrest (a) if, either before the issue of such summons, or after the issue of the same but before the time fixed for his appearance, the court sees reason to believe that he has absconded or will not obey the summons; or" ( 7 ) A reading of the above provision makes it clear that Section 87 (a) applies to cases in which the Court is empowered to issue summons for appearance of the accused in the first instance. The provision governing issuance of process for appearance of the accused in the first instance is Section 204 (1) of the Cr, P. C. , which reads as under :"204. Issue of process. The provision governing issuance of process for appearance of the accused in the first instance is Section 204 (1) of the Cr, P. C. , which reads as under :"204. Issue of process. (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be (a) a summons case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. " ( 8 ) A combined reading of Sections 87 (a) and 204 (1) of Cr. P. C. makes it clear that recording of reasons for issuing a warrant instead of a summons is mandatory in a summons case and it is not s'o in a warrant case. When the accused in a warrant case is shown to have absconded, no illegality is committed, if the Court orders for issuing nbw. The present case being a warrant case, where the accused had been shown as absconding order for issuing warrant in the first instance itself for production of the accused was not opposed to the provisions of Section 204 (1) (b) of Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, on factual side, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the full address of the accused no. 2 had not been furnished in the charge-sheet and that he has been described only as Shankar Babu, Owner of Lorry No. KA-04/2222, Bangalore. Perhaps insufficient address mentioned by the Police might have led to further endorsement that he was not traced and that he was absconding. It is also seen that the correct name of the petitioner is Babu Shankar and not Shankar babu. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of proceedings until the publication of proclamation for his appearance has to be, therefore, accepted. The facts of this case indicate that there may be some instances where the Investigating officer does not make effort to trace the accused and without properly verifying the matter, may show the accused as absconding. The facts of this case indicate that there may be some instances where the Investigating officer does not make effort to trace the accused and without properly verifying the matter, may show the accused as absconding. Therefore, though in warrant cases, a court is empowered to issue in the first instance a warrant for securing the presence of the accused, it is desirable that the Court may at the first instance issue summons for the appearance of the accused and may issue a warrant either bailable or non-bailable in case it is satisfied that despite efforts by the police, the accused could not be traced. It may also issue warrant of arrest, if it is satisfied on the description of the accused that he has absconded and may not obey the summons. ( 10 ) FOR the abovesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court before the end of March 2004 and move for regular bail. If he so appears, the orders passed for issuing NBE, proclamation and attachment of property warrant shall stand quashed with a condition that the petitioner shall attend the Court regularly on every date of hearing. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .