DHIRIA Vs. JAINARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision application against an order whereby the bail-bonds and surety-bonds of 29 petitioners have been ordered to be forfeited by the Munsif magistrate, Pali.

(2.) THE Munsif Magistrate Pali took cognizance of an offence under Sections 430/147 I. P. C. against 30 accused persons on a complaint moved by Jainarain. Warrants were issued for the appearance of the accused on the 23rd January 1968. One of the accused persons Sawaram appeared before the Munsif magistrate but on behalf of the other 29 accused persons an application was made praying that their personal presence be dispensed with under Section 540a, Cr. P. C. and they may be permitted to appear through their pleader because it was sowing season and these 29 agriculturists were required to be present on their fields. The Magistrate dismissed the application by saying that there were no appropriate grounds for granting the applicants an exemption and simultaneously ordered the forfeiture of the bail-bonds and the surety bonds. The 29 petitioners before me moved a revision application and the learned Sessions Judge while observing that the learned Magistrate had dismissed the application for exemption laconically and his order was not proper because no reasons for rejection of the application were set out. The learned Sessions Judge however declined to make a reference to the High Court because he thought that it was hardly worthwhile making a reference of such a small matter to the High Court as it was likely to take a long time. In his view, the ends of justice would have been met if another application was made to the learned Magistrate and it was considered by him in the light of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, Without making any such application before the Magistrate, the petitioners have come up before me.

(3.) MR. Jain appearing for the applicants submits that these 29 villagers who are residents of village Rana, District Pali, a famine stricken area, were required to be present at their fields at the time in question, and it was a fit case where the powers under Section 540a, Cr. P. C. ought to have been exercised in their favour rather than an order of forfeiture of the bail bonds and surety bonds more particularly because the complaint itself is the result of vindictiveness.