AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.D. Kapoor, J.
Crl.M. 3622/2003:
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
Crl.M. 3621/2003 in Crl.M.(M) 2718/2003 :
In view of the fact that the offences against the petitioner are punishable only by way of fine, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed as the non-bailable warrants were issued by the learned Magistrate on the report of the summons that the accused had left the said address.
Until and unless there was a report that the accused was avoiding service or have refused to accept the summons, such a coercive steps should not have been resorted. If at all there was a need to take such a coercive process, the Court should at the first instance have issued bailable warrants as the nature of the offence is not only bailable but punishment is only with that of fine. In view of the patent illegality in the order, there is no need for giving any notice. The petition is allowed at the threshold. The impugned order is set aside. However, the petitioner shall appear before the Court on the date fixed failing which the impugned order will come into operation. dusty.