Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court allowed a petition seeking quashing of a non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the Special POCSO Court in Bhadrak against the petitioner. While noting that the trial court had not committed any legal error, the High Court exercised its discretion “in the larger interests of justice” to set aside the warrant. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing ₹3,000 to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and appearing before the trial court within two weeks. The Court sternly cautioned that any future default would entitle the trial court to take coercive action.
Facts
The petitioner was initially granted bail on 21.11.2016 in a case under the POCSO Act. He had been appearing regularly before the trial court. However, on one occasion, due to a communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel, neither the petitioner appeared nor any steps were taken on his behalf. As a result, the Special Court issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest on 28.10.2021. The petitioner then approached the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction to challenge this warrant, arguing that the lapse was due to his lawyer’s negligence, not deliberate non-compliance on his part.
Issues
- Whether the issuance of a non-bailable warrant due to a single default in appearance justified interference by the High Court?
- Whether a party can be penalised for lapses on the part of their legal counsel?
- Whether the High Court can set aside such warrant in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted:
- He was regularly attending court proceedings following his release on bail.
- The failure to appear on the specific date was due to a communication failure with his lawyer, who did not inform him of the scheduled appearance.
- The warrant was thus not justified, and the petitioner should not suffer due to the counsel’s mistake.
- He undertook to appear and participate in future proceedings without default if given another opportunity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State did not oppose the petition on the merits but relied on the validity of the trial court’s order. It was contended that:
- The trial court acted within its jurisdiction in issuing a non-bailable warrant when the accused failed to appear.
- The petitioner’s remedy, if any, lay in rectifying the situation by proper compliance rather than challenging the court’s procedural orders.
Analysis of the Law
The Court balanced two competing principles:
- On the one hand, the sanctity of court orders and the necessity of ensuring an accused’s presence in trial proceedings.
- On the other hand, the equitable consideration that a litigant should not be prejudiced for no fault of their own.
The Court relied on the well-settled principle that a party should not suffer for the negligence or default of their lawyer. It also invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Precedent Analysis
Although the judgment did not cite authorities by name, the reasoning reflects consistent jurisprudence:
- Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, (2010) 9 SCC 209 – Courts must avoid injustice resulting from an advocate’s lapses.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Inherent powers can be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice.
- K.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2005) 10 SCC 46 – Personal liberty should not be curtailed for technical defaults when no mala fide is involved.
These precedents support judicial leniency in non-appearance cases stemming from counsel’s error.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that the trial court had acted correctly within its jurisdiction. However, it stated:
“In the larger interests of justice and in order to provide another opportunity to the Petitioner… the order dated 28.10.2021 is set aside.”
The Court emphasized that the petitioner must:
- Deposit ₹3,000 to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within 15 days;
- Appear before the trial court within two weeks with a copy of this order;
- Continue to participate in proceedings without fail.
It clearly warned that:
“In the event, the Petitioner makes any further default in appearance, it is open to the Court… to take necessary coercive steps.”
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Set aside the non-bailable warrant dated 28.10.2021.
- Directed the petitioner to pay ₹3,000 to the local bar’s welfare fund within 15 days.
- Ordered appearance before the trial court within two weeks and continuous participation thereafter.
- Granted liberty to the trial court to take coercive action in case of further defaults.
- Allowed the petition and disposed it accordingly.
Implications
- Highlights the High Court’s readiness to intervene when procedural lapses cause undue hardship.
- Reinforces the principle that litigants should not be penalised for their counsel’s missteps.
- Balances procedural compliance with access to fair justice, especially in sensitive matters like those under the POCSO Act.
FAQs
Q1. Can a non-bailable warrant be quashed if the accused missed a date due to lawyer’s negligence?
Yes. Courts can quash such warrants if the absence was unintentional and caused by counsel’s lapse, provided the accused undertakes to appear henceforth.
Q2. What is the consequence of non-compliance after High Court relief in such cases?
If the accused defaults again, the trial court is empowered to take coercive steps including re-issuance of warrant.
Q3. Why was the petitioner required to pay money to the Advocates’ Welfare Fund?
It serves as a token cost to discourage casual litigation while supporting the welfare of the legal community.
