CHHOTEY LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. In this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure a grievance has been made with respect to the order passed by the learned VIIIth Special Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. A case was pending in which the Applicant was run down under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pertaining to police of P.S. Patti, District Pratapgarh. The case was registered as No. 468 of 1983 and hearing was going on in the Court of VIIIth Special Judicial Magistrate, District Pratapgarh. The Applicant unfortunately could not appear on 18th January. 1985. Learned Counsel Sri Mithai Lal Advocate presented an application before the Court for exemption of attendance of the Applicant, but when the case was called out it seems that except the application the learned Advocate was not present. The Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application for exemption of the attendance of the Applicant and issued non -bailable warrants of arrest.

(2.) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the Sessions Court, but the same has been rejected as no revision was maintainable against an interlocutory order. Copy of this order is Annexure -2 to this petition.

(3.) I am however of the view that in case the learned Advocate has appeared at a subsequent stage as has been stated in the supplementary affidavit then the Court should have taken a lenient view by fixing the case on the next date. It is indeed harsh to punish a litigant who is brought before a Court for commissions and omissions of a counsel. In anger and anguish sometimes courts have a tendency to take a drastic step but then on second thought but it has ample power to recall the said order provided the conduct of the lawyer is fair and bonafide. In the instant case I have reason to believe in the view of averments made in the supplementary affidavit that it was on account of pressure of work that inadvertently the mistake has happened and the learned Court should not have punished the applicant on the slight fault of the counsel.