JUDGMENT & ORDER : DEEPAK MAHESHWARI, J. 1. This criminal writ petition has been preferred by accused-petitioner K.K Jain assailing the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar in Cr. Case No. 23/145/2017, whereby the application filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record. 3. A charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (‘the Act of 1955’) came to be filed under the provisions of Section 299 Cr.P.C against the present petitioner on 08.04.2005 Certified copies of the order-sheets of the trial court since 08.04.2005 until 23.11.2017 have been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal. It appears that only one witness namely Anand Prakash (PW-1) has been examined by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the alleged contravention of the provisions contained in Clause 8 of the Textile (Developments and Regulation) Order, 1993, the charge-sheet was filed against petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955. Referring to the letter dated 13.07.2017 (Annex.2) written by Joint Textile Commissioner to Inspector Police, P.S Bhiwadi, learned counsel submits that on fulfilling the entire backlog obligations by M/s. Reflex Textiles Ltd. and considering the fact that the firm had closed since 03.02.2003, a letter dated 03.11.2004 was written by Textile Department to the concerned police authorities to keep the proceedings in abeyance on the FIR filed against the said company till decision of the appeal. Learned counsel further submits that on decision of the appeal preferred by M/s. Reflex Textile Ltd., Joint Textile Commissioner informed the police authorities that his office is not interested to pursue the FIR as the entire obligation due against the said companies stood fulfilled. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite letter dated 03.11.2004 to keep the proceedings in abeyance, unwarrantedly charge-sheet was filed on 08.04.2005 against petitioner K.K Jain, who was Director of M/s. Reflex Textiles Ltd. Further as per letter dated 13.07.2007 (Annex.2), it was informed to the police authorities that the entire obligation stands fulfilled against the said company. 6. Learned counsel submits that after closure of the company in the year 2003, petitioner K.K Jain started living at Gurugram, Haryana. 6. Learned counsel submits that after closure of the company in the year 2003, petitioner K.K Jain started living at Gurugram, Haryana. He is an old person of 77 years of age and leading his retired life. He did not come to know about filing of the charge-sheet and therefore, he did not remain present before the trial court. On coming to know about the warrants having been issued against him, he filed an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C on 15.11.2017 before the trial court, which came to be dismissed vide order impugned dated 23.11.2017 7. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the proceedings pending before the trial court, but in the fact situation mentioned above, the arrest warrant issued against him may be converted into bailable one. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. 9. On perusal of the letter dated 13.07.2007 (Annex.2), it appears that all the obligations due towards M/s. Reflex Textiles Ltd. stood fulfilled and the complainant department was, therefore, not interested to pursue the FIR. However, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner on 08.04.2005 Coming to know about the said charge-sheet, the petitioner moved an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C before the trial court, which came to be rejected on account of long absence of the accused before the trial court But in the facts and circumstances mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be assumed that the absence was intentional and to avoid the participation in the trial. Further, since the accused-petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the proceedings, it appears justified to convert the arrest warrant issued against him into bail-able warrant and to allow him to participate in the trial. 10. In light of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set-aside with the further direction to learned trial court to consider the application filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C afresh in light of the observations made above.