R KRISHNASAMY Vs. K P ANIRUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in both the cases is one and the same. On one hearing he was absent. Though a petition under section 317, Cr. P. C. was filed, it appears, the learned Magistrate refused to condone his absence, but chose to issue N. B. W. THEreafter, a petition to recall the warrant was filed by the petitioner in both the cases, without making his appearance. It seems the petition was dismissed. THErefore, these revisions.

(2.) THIS Court time and again is telling the trial courts not to be harsh in condoning the absence of the accused for valid reasons under section 317, Cr. P.C. It is a benevolent provision that has to be liberally used, unless, it has to be refused for valid reasons. Unfortunately, because of such a refusal, the trial is delayed and the accused has to come before this court and get an order. Though, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of non bailable warrant, it is only in the nature of advice to the trial court not to indulge in such wholesale dismissal of the petitions filed under section 317 Cr. P.C.