Warrant process in serious corruption-linked offences may depart from the usual summons-first rule on overall case seriousness.

The general rule that summons should ordinarily precede warrants after filing of a charge-sheet was acknowledged, but the document notes an exception where the allegations disclose a grave offence with wider economic ramifications. In the described corruption-related cattle smuggling matter involving substantial loss, the court treated the case as one where the trial court could properly exercise discretion to issue a warrant on an overall assessment of seriousness. The challenge to the warrant order was therefore rejected as lacking merit, and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision should be allowed against the order issuing a warrant of arrest, in the context of the rule that summons should ordinarily precede warrants and the exception for serious offences with wider economic ramifications.

Analysis: The accused had relied upon the general principle that, after filing of charge-sheet, the court should first proceed by summons and thereafter by bailable warrant before resorting to a non-bailable warrant. The Court noted that the governing guidance on arrest process was not disputed, but held that the case arose out of a grave corruption-related scam involving large-scale illegal cattle smuggling and substantial loss. On that footing, the Court treated the matter as falling within the category of serious offences where the Trial Court could exercise discretion differently and issue a warrant on an overall assessment of the case.

Conclusion: The revision was held to be without merit and the challenge to the warrant order failed.

---