District Courts issuing NBWs on trivial issues atrocious:SC

New Delhi, Oct 26 (UNI) Condemning the increasing tendency among judicial officers in the District Courts of issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) at the drop of a hat, the Supreme Court today termed the move of the lower courts 'atrocious'.

The remarks were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and and Justices R V Raveendran and V S Sirpurkar during the hearing of a petition filed by an Additional District Judge of Delhi, who was directed by the Delhi High Court to go to the Judicial Academy for training.

According to the High Court, the judge did not even have the elementary knowledge of law.

Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave appeared for the petitioner Rakesh Tewari, who had filed a petition in the Supreme Court to annul the adverse remarks passed by Justice V B Gupta of Delhi High Court, while quashing the non-bailable warrant as well as the proceedings under the Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC.

Tewari had declared an accused a proclaimed offender in a case of theft of electricity.

The Apex Court stayed the observation of the High Court order for two weeks to enable the Additional Sessions Judge to approach the High Court for seeking the relief of expunction of adverse remarks.

The top court told the petitioner's counsel that the Magistrates take sadistic pleasure in issuing NBWs to demonstrate their powers.

The unprecedented order was passed by the High Court on October 6, 2007 when it was brought to its notice that the Additional District Judge had even refused to comply with the directions issued by the High Court.

The petitioner pleaded before the court that he had taught for 13 years in the Judicial Academy, where he was being sent for training and it would be sheer humiliation for him.

The petitioner was a public prosecutor for a long time before being elevated as an Additional Sessions Judge.

The Apex Court cautioned the judicial officers in Lower Judiciary to be careful while issuing such warrants as such process involved serious civil consequences for the accused, whose properties were attached and his individual liberty was curtailed.

UNI