Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1099 (MAD)

Syththun Beevi v. Mohamed Kasim Jinna

2015-02-24

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment 1. The petitioners have arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.72 of 2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai for the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/accused promised to get a machine, which manufactures noodles and also collected a sum of Rs.8,35,000/- and though the machinery was delivered, the supply was not to the specification and requirement of the de-facto complainant and thereby they cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.8,35,000/- being the value of the machinery. The petitioners did not choose to appear and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued against them. The petitioners apprehending arrest filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9788 of 2014 praying for anticipatory bail and this Court vide order dated 04.06.2014 has noted the fact of pendency of non bailable warrant against them and was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail and however, directed the petitioners herein to surrender before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai and file a petition to recall the non bailable warrant and directed the trial Court to entertain the said petition and pass orders on the same day on merits and in accordance with law. 3. The petitioners instead of filing a petition to recall the non bailable warrant, filed Crl.M.P.No.1356 of 2014 praying for anticipatory bail before the Principal Sessions Court at Pudukottai and the said Court vide order dated 02.08.2014 has enlarged them on bail subject to the condition that they shall deposit copies of their passports before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, in the event of their surrender or on appearance before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further directed them to execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Court and also ordered them to report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month with default clause. 4. 4. The de-facto complainant/respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1542 of 2014 for cancellation of bail by stating that the order dated 04.06.2014 made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9788 of 2014 has been suppressed, while the petitioners filed petition for anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.1356 of 2014 and if the said fact was brought to the notice of the Principal Sessions Court, Pudukottai, it would not have granted them anticipatory bail and it is further stated that they have also not complied with the conditions. 5. The Principal Sessions Court has taken into consideration of the petition filed for cancellation of bail found that the fact of filing of anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9788 of 2014 has been suppressed and that apart, they have been complied with the conditions between 08.08.2014 and 27.08.2014 only and thereafter they did not comply with the conditions and they have also not produced any material to show that on account of illness of the 2nd respondent/2nd petitioner herein, both the accused proceeded to Malaysia and citing the said reasons cancelled the order granting anticipatory bail vide impugned order dated 27.11.2014. 6. When the matter was listed for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2, on instructions, made a submission that without prejudice to their rights, they are willing to deposit a sum of Rs.8,35,000/- to the credit of Crime No.98 of 2012 registered by the Inspector of police, Pudukottai Town Police Station, within a period of two weeks from today. This Court has noted the said submission in its order dated 09.02.2015. 7. When the matter is listed today, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the receipt evidencing the deposit of sum of Rs.8,35,000/- to the credit of C.C.No.72 of 2013/Pudukottai Town police Station Crime No.98 of 2013, dated 18.02.2015 and made a submission that since the interest and welfare of the respondent/de-facto complainant has been fully secured, there cannot be any impediment in setting aside the impugned order cancelling the anticipatory bail and prays for appropriate orders. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the orders dated 09.02.2015 passed by this Court has been complied with and would further submit that the petitioners continue to remain in Malaysia and they may be directed to deposit their original passports with the further direction that they shall also cooperate with the trial Court for the expedite completion of the trial. 9. 9. It is to be pointed out at this juncture that according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are citizens of Malaysia and holders of Malaysian passport and since the 2nd petitioner/2nd accused has been suffering due to renal stone, he was advised to take treatment at Malaysia and accordingly, they went to Malaysia and as and when treatment is completed, they would return back to the country and face the trial. 10. This Court, taking into consideration of the fact that the interest of the de-facto complainant has been protected to a major extent on account of deposit of Rs.8,35,000/- by the petitioners herein without prejudice to their contention, is of the view that the impugned order cancelling the anticipatory bail is to be set aside and the order dated 02.08.2014 made in Cr.M.P.No.1356 of 2014 is to be restored. It is also made clear that the sum of Rs.8,35,000/- shall remain in deposit till the culmination of trial and it depends upon the result of the trial, either of the parties may move the trial Court for appropriate orders with regard to withdrawal of the said sum. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 27.11.2014 made in Cr.M.P.No.1542 of 2014 and the order dated 02.08.2014 in Cr.M.P.No.1356 of 2014 stands restored and it is open to the petitioners to move necessary application before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, if it is permissible in law, for condonation of their absence and to work out any other remedy open to them, strictly in accordance with law. Consequently connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.