LAWS(MPH)-1957-7-23

HARBO Vs. JANKIBAI

Decided On July 30, 1957
Harbo Appellant
V/S
JANKIBAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision application are that the opponent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the second Additional Munsiff, Bhopal, complaining that the petitioner and his son had called her a thief and had committed an offence under Section 500 I.P C. The said complaint was dismissed and the accused were discharged on 2 -12 -1955: In December, 1956 she filed another complaint on the same facts against the petitioner alone. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued a summons to her to appear in Court on 16 -1 -1957. The petitioner did not appear in Court personally. Her counsel put in an application on her behalf and prayed for being exempted from personal appearance in Court. The application was rejected by the trial Court and the order of that Court was maintained by the Sessions Judge in revision. She has, therefore, approached this Court.

(2.) THE application shows that the incident with respect to which the complaint is lodged is a very trivial one and the learned Magistrate himself did not issue a warrant but issued a summons ordering the accused to appear in Court on 16 -1 -1957. The ease is one to which the provisions of Section 205 can be applied. In Ramsingh vs. Gaurishonkar Criminal Revision No. 188 of 1956, I have held that the presence of the accused before the Court during the inquiry or trial is primarily intended for his benefit and if he applies to the Court to dispense with the personal attendance, the prayer should be considered unless the Court is of the opinion that the presence of the accused is necessary in the interest of justice or for any other special reason. I also held that in considering the application, the allegations in the complaint and the circumstances of the case should be taken into account and if the dispute is of a trivial nature the prayer of the accused should be considered favorably.

(3.) I do not think the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dealing with the revision application before him in this manner.