A K SUBBIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 28-4-1980 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Virajpet, in CC No.667 of 1977. The order is as follows:- "Accused absent and EA filed and disallowed since they are absent since long time. Issue NBW to them by 29-5-1980".

(2.) On filing of this criminal petition in this Court, this Court stayed further proceedings in the said case by its order dated 27 5-1980. Therefore, the non-bailable warrant directed by the learned Magistrate on 28-4 1980 might not have been either issued or served.

(3.) The few facts necessary for disposal of this petition filed under S. 482 of Cr.PC may be narrated as follows :- Respondent-1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and another as A-1 and A-2 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under S. 505 (b) of IPC in publishing certain matter in the news paper 'Hitavani' daily. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. On 21-3-1980-it is not necessaray to narrate for how many times the case was adjourned from 19-12-79-an application under S. 317 of Cr.PC was filed for exemption of the petitioner from appearance during trial. In my opinion, it would serve the purpose properly if the sum and substance of the said application is narrated at this stage itself. It is stated that the petitioner is an MLC and has to attend the Legislature and some committees in Bangalore and he should always be present in the Capital City viz., Bangalore and further that his personal appearance is not necessary in the interest of justice. On that day both the accused were present. The learned Magistrate called for objections from the Asst. Public Prosecutor and posted the case to 3-4-1980. On 3-4-1980 the Asst. Public Prosecutor prayed for time to file objections. The accused were absent but exemption application was filed evidently under S. 205 Cr.PC and was allowed. The case was posted to 16:4-1980. On 16 4-1980 also the accused were absent and an exemption application was filed evidently under S. 205 of Cr.PC. It appears, it has been allowed. The Assistant Public Prosecutor filed objections to the application under S. 317 of Cr PC filed on 21 3-1980. The case was posted to 28 4 1980 which is the relevant date. On that day again the accused were absent and an exemption application was filed. It is my considered opinion that a gist of this application be narrated at this stage itself. This has been filed on behalf of both the accused persons. It states that because of certain unavoidable reasons, the accused were to be present in Bangalore and exemption from appearance for that date be granted to them. It is on consideration of this application that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order.