1. Heard Sri Mohit Kumar Syed along with Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsels for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer, who appears for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 482 CrPC preferred by the applicant seeking relief to the extent that the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2012 in so far as it relates to the issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant in Case Crime no.151 of 2003, under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. 58 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar be set aside and also to direct the lower appellate court to rehear the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that post lodging of the FIR on 16.07.2003, under Sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 501 IPC, criminal proceeding stood triggered on and thereafter, the same culminated into an order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Case no.7148 of 2011, acquitting the applicant for the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 496, 501, 506, 509 IPC against which a Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2012, State of U.P. Vs. Navneet Rai, stood preferred, in which on 08.01.2025, the applicant was convicted and the charges were found proved against the applicant under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, however, since the applicant was not present, nonbailable warrant was issued and 15.01.2025 was the date fixed for hearing on the charges. Learned counsel for the applicant while relying on the judgment in the case of Purushottam Chaudhary Vs. C.B.I., 2023 (4) ADJ 336 has sought to argue that before proceeding to issue non-bailable warrant, it was imperative upon the court below to have issued bailable warrants. He submits that even otherwise merit, no offences are made out and the lower appellate court has committed an error in reversing the finding of the trial court.

3. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once the judgment and order of trial court stood upset/reversed and a finding regarding charges being found proved against the applicant stood recorded, then charges/ sentence is to be read and the requirement of the applicant/accused is mandatory, as the entire exercise is to be done in his presence. He submits that the judgment so sought to be relied upon by the applicant would not be of any aid and assistance in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submits that there is already an appropriate remedy available to the applicant against the ultimate order of conviction.

4. Having heard the learned counsels for the applicant and the State Law Officer, I am of the opinion that the judgment so sought to be relied upon by the applicant would not apply. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when, this is a case, wherein conviction stood recorded against the applicant and the appellate court issued non-bailable warrant so as to accord the sentence in the presence of the accused. Even otherwise, the principle as enumerated under Section 437-A CrPC and 481 of BNS will also come into play.

5. Accordingly, the application stands consigned to record. Moreover passing of the order may not be construed to an expression on merits and it is always open for the applicant to take appropriate remedy as permissible and advisable under law.