S DURLAB SINGH Vs. OMKAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge Srinagar dated 11 -1 -65 whereby he rejected a revision petition of the petitioner against the order of the Munsiff Sub -Registrar Magistrate first class Srinagar dated 16 -10 -64.

(2.) THE facts that have given rise to this petition are as under. A criminal complaint under S. 500/501 RPC was instituted by Dr. Omkar Nath respondent against the petitioner who is alleged to be the editor and S. Kulbir Singh the printer and publisher and Mr. J. S. Chopra, Staff correspondent of the Indian Observer. The accused were summoned by means of the courts order of the same day. Out of the three accused, till today accused Nos, 2 and 3 have not appeared in the court. The first accused, the petitioner before me, appeared before the trial court and later on put in an application on 19 -8 -64 for exemption from personal attendance in the court. The grounds mentioned in the application are that he is the editor of a very important publication known as the Indian Observer which has a wide circulation in and outside India. If he is to appear personally in the criminal case here, he will suffer an irreperable loss. The second ground mentioned in the application is that he has to come from a distance of 500 miles which will be injurious to his health and business. Incidentally it is mentioned that the health of the accused No. 1 also is not perfect ; he is under treatment and should be exempted. In the trial court the petitioner produced a certificate of one Dr. Y. C, Arora dated 10 -11 -64 which says that he was suffering from diabetes and he had developed coronary Ischemia. He was advised complete rest and avoid cold and hill station during the winter.

(3.) AFTER hearing arguments the trial Magistrate rejected this application. A revision against this order was presented before the learned Sessions Judge. There also the same doctor by his certificate dated 22 -12 -64 had said that the petitioner was suffering from diabetes and coronory Ischemia and was advised rest for six weeks and avoid cold. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties rejected the revision petition. It is against these orders that the present revision petition has been moved in this Court.