- (1.) K. C. Bhargara, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants and the State counsel have been heard. LEARNED counsel for the applicants has argued that on 30-3-1993 the case was fixed before the learned Trial Magistrate for arguments as to whether the accused should be discharged or the charge be framed against them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners on that date the accused persons, who are the petitioners in the present case, were not present on account of illness and an application for their exemption was moved. LEARNED counsel also argued that the counsel for the accused who were present was prepared to argue the matter on the question as to whether the charge should be framed or not framed against accused. According t a the learned counsel the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for exemption and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. Learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the accused should have been present before the court so that the arguments could have been advanced before the court. He has further argued that it was the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate trying the case as to whether the accused persons should be exempted from personal appearance on that date or not. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the papers on record, it is apparent that the case was listed on 30-4-1993 for arguments on the question as to whether the charge should or not be framed. In order to advance arguments on this question the presence of the accused persons was not necessary. The arguments on these points could have been advanced and heard by the court in the absence of the accused persons. It is not a case of the prosecution that the presence of the accused persons was necessary at the time of advancing arguments on the question under considera tion. When the arguments in the case could have been advanced in absence of accused persons the court should have exempted the personal presence of the accused persons even if no medical certificate was filed on that date because in the absence of the accused persons the cas ; was not going to be adjourned and the arguments on the question about framing of charge could have been heard by the court. Non- hearing of the arguments by the court on that date has resulted in delay of proceedings for about a month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of A. Chimanlal v. State ofu. P. , 1990 (27) ACC 617. , In this case it was observed that unless the claim for discharge was refused and unless the charge was framed against the accused, his personal attendance was not necessary It was also observed that a non-bailable warrant issued against the accused can also be withdrawn and the accused can be permitted to appear through his counsel exempting his personal attendance. 6. This court also is in agreement with the views expressed in the above noted case and finds that the progress of the case was not in any way hampered by non-presence of the accused persons on the date fixed. 7. On consideration of the entire facts on record, the order, dated 30-3-1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, copy of which is Annexure 8 to the petition deserves to be quashed. 8. The petition is allowed and the order, dated 30-3-1993 in case No. 8577 of 1992, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucfcnow in State R, C. Dhtngra and others, is quashed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be given today to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed .;