NAWAB ZAIN YAR JUNG Vs. RAGHOTAM RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the District Magistrate, Hyderabad City, under Section 438 of the Criminal P. C.

(2.) ON the 10th of June, 1955, a complaint was laid against the petitioners alleging an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, Summonses were issued by the City Magistrate wherein the, petitioners were asked to appear before the Court of the City Magistrate on the 27th June, 1955. On that date, the learned advocate for the four petitioners filed an application before the City Magistrate for exempting the attendance of the petitioners. The City Magistrate passed an order on the 27th June, 1955, directing the petitioners to attend the Court in person on the next hearing day and execute personal bonds. This, according to the City Magistrate, was 'with a view to impress upon the people that justice is not only being done but it is done to the satisfaction of all. ' As against the said order of the City Magistrate, the petitioners preferred a revision to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, on a consideration of the material circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the petitioners' attendance might be dispensed with and the revision petitions be allowed. Hence this reference.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners is absent, both on Monday when this reference came up for hearing and also today. Mr. Sudarna Rao Dixit, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that he had no objection to the petitioners being exempted from personal attendance but that the Magistrate's order directing them to execute bonds was proper, having regard to the fact that on the date of the third hearing (27th July, 1955) neither the petitioners nor their Advocate were present in Court.