Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 317 (RAJ)

RAM DEV SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2007-02-13

DALIP SINGH

body2007
Judgment DALIP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was involved in an offence under Section 167 of the Representation of Peoples Act for which he was summoned by bailable warrants in the year 1993. ( 2 ) SINCE the bailable warrants could not be served, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 17. 11. 2005 declared the petitioner to be an absconder issued standing arrest warrants against him. It is alleged that when the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid order, he moved an application before the learned Magistrate on 03. 11. 2006 for converting the arrest warrants to the bailable warrants under Section 70 (2) Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THE application dated 03. 11. 2006 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 21. 11. 2006 by the learned Magistrate. The orders dated 21. 11. 2006 and 17. 11. 2005 are subject of challenge before this court. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the petitioner never came to know about the proceedings having been initiated against him as the address was written on the summons was not the correct address as the petitioner was not residing at chandpole Gate, Sikar but in the village kalyanpura under the Police Station Sadar, Sikar. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the date now be fixed for the appearance of the petitioner and the petitioner would appear on the said date and face the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in the case no. 851/1993 [state v. Ramdev Singh]. ( 6 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has submitted that case is an old one and the proceedings have remained pending only on account of the non-appearance of the petitioner and that it is only after the issuance of standing arrest warrants that the petitioner appeared before the court and filed the application dated 03. 11. 2006. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate while deciding the application dated 03. 11. 11. 2006. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate while deciding the application dated 03. 11. 2006 has not given any finding with regard to the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner was not residing at the address of Outside chandpole Gate, Sikar and that in fact he was residing at the village Kalyanpura, Police Station Sadar, sikar and, therefore, the summons could not be served upon the petitioner. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, it is hereby directed that in case the petitioner appears before the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and gives his appearance in Criminal Case No. 851/1993 [state v. Ramdeu Singh] on or before 26. 02. 2007, the operation of the order dated 17. 11. 2005 and 21. 11. 2006 shall remain stayed. It is, however, made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the learned trial court on or before 26. 02. 2007 the order sheet dated 17. 11. 2005 and 21. 11. 2006 shall stand revived. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be arrested till 25. 02. 2007. ( 10 ) THIS misc. petition accordingly stands disposed of, as above. Petition allowed. .