GOVIND PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision involves matter of liberty of a citizen and has to be disposed of right now. What appears is that Special Trial No. 5 of 1987 State Vs. Govind Prasad and others , under Sections 420/ 467, 468/471/120-B, I.P.C. and Sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Juhi is pending before II Additional District Judge Special Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Case was fixed for hearing (at this stage whether for framing of charge or evidence being not material). On that day both co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Goenka and revisionist Govind Prasad Goenka applied for exemption from personal attendance. Learned Special Judge exempted the personal attendance of K. L. Goenka but did not exempt personal attendance of applicant Govind Prasad Goenka on the ground that he was intentionally and deliberately avoiding the Court and there is no proper cause to substantiate the excuse offered by the revisionist. Learned Magistrate proceeded to forfeit the bonds of revisionist who was on bail. He directed issue of warrant and adjourned the case to 23rd May, 1990. The order was carried out and non-bailable warrant was issued for the arrest of the revisionist. It is now said that since 9th July, 1990 revisionist is in jail. It is no doubt true that Courts have to maintain discipline. It is also true that Courts have to act judicially and act upon the materials placed before it. But it is equally true that justice must be tempered with kindness and discretion curtailing the liberty of a citizen should be exercised with care and caution. When the personal attendance of co-accused had already been exempted case was bound to be adjourned. In that state of affairs it would have been reasonable for the revisionist to exercise jurisdiction granting exemption to revisionist also. It is evident that the order of the Special Judge was unduly harsh showing vindictiveness in exercise of discretion. Hence, in revision this Court is bound to interfere. Any order curtailing liberty of the citizen affects his rights and obligations and is naturally a final order. Such an order is amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397, Cr. P. C. and revision cannot be thrown out on the ground that the order under revision is interlocutory order. In result, on consideration of the circumstances of the case I admit and allow the revision at this very stage. The impugned order is set aside. Revisionist shall be released from jail on his furnishing fresh personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of C. M. M., Kanpur Nagar. A copy of the order be issued to the learned counsel for the revisionist within 24 hours. Revision allowed.