GOVIND PRASAD GOENKA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. 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 v. Govind Prasad & Ors. , under Section 420/467, 468/471/120-B, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of Preven tion 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 Goving 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 ad journed the case to 23rd May, 1990. The order was carried put and non-bailable warrant was issued for the arrest of the revisionist. It is now said that since 9ih July, 1990 revisionist is in jail.

(2.) 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.