- (1.) A. Mateen, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
(2.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred by petitioners being aggrieved against order dated 19-9-2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda by means of which non- bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners in Case No. 2491/03/01 under Sections 145, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427, 448, 379 IPC and process under Sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. has also been issued against them fixing 22-11-2003 in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that complaint has been preferred by Radha Raman, opposite party No. 2 upon which the petitioners have been summoned. He stated that the Court concerned should have allowed the application under Section 205 Cr. P. C. moved by the petitioners for exemption of attendance. Section 205 provides with respect to dispensation of personal attendance of the accused upon an application so moved by the accused persons, if the Magistrate sees reason to do so. Sub- section (2) of Section 205 Cr. P. C. further provides that the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of the accused and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner provided. Thus, from a bare reading of Section 205 Cr. P. C. it clearly comes out that if application for exemption of attendance by accused persons is moved and the Magistrate sees reasons to do so, he may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and direct him to appear through a pleader and sub-section (2) of said Section further provides that at any stage of the proceedings, he may direct the personal attendance of the accused and also enforce the attendance in the manner provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the case of Vishwa Nath Jiloka v. Ist Munsif, Lower Criminal Court, Bahraich, reported in 1990 (1) JIC 721 (All) : 1990 Lko Cr R 136. The facts of the said decision are quite different and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. While considering the facts and circumstances of the in hand and also from the order dated 19-9-2003 it clearly comes out that the application moved by the accused persons was rejected and they were directed to appear by the order of the learned Magistrate dated 8-7-2003. The order seems to be germane and in accordance with law. Even the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 to the petition dated 19-9-2003 is in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 to the petition dated 19-9-2003 is in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners then argued that the petitioners have been appearing on the past dates before the Court concerned, as such, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate having been satisfied that on due application of mind and after arriving at the satisfaction that the petitioners are concealing themselves or intending to abscond.;