D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. In this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure a grievance has been made with respect to the order passed by the learned VIIIth Special Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh. A case was pending in which the Applicant was run down under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act pertaining to police of P.S. Patti, District Pratapgarh. The case was registered as No. 468 of 1983 and hearing was going on in the Court of VIIIth Special Judicial Magistrate, District Pratapgarh. The Applicant unfortunately could not appear on 18th January. 1985. Learned Counsel Sri Mithai Lal Advocate presented an application before the Court for exemption of attendance of the Applicant, but when the case was called out it seems that except the application the learned Advocate was not present. The Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application for exemption of the attendance of the Applicant and issued non -bailable warrants of arrest.
(2.) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the Sessions Court, but the same has been rejected as no revision was maintainable against an interlocutory order. Copy of this order is Annexure -2 to this petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the averments brought on the record. Learned Counsel for the Applicant with all vehemence in his command could not justify the action of the learned Advocate appearing before the Magistrate. It is high time that the counsel appearing in Criminal cases should understand that they are duty bound to appear in a case. They cannot take any liberty by not appearing in a criminal case. This responsibility doubly falls on his shoulders when, he seeks to assure his client that his attendance will be exempted by the Court. The exemption can only be if the counsel representing the Applicant makes it a point to remain present before the Magistrate in order to represent his client if and when the case is called out. In the instant case learned Counsel for the Applicant tried to take double liberty. On the one hand he sought for exemption of the attendance of his client: from appearance before the Court on the ground that he was duly represented by the counsel and on the other hand he made himself busy in other Courts as a result of which the proceedings in the Court relating to the case were obstructed. In my opinion the action by the Court is the only way to control a proceeding in a court of law. A lawyer when accepts a brief has two fold duties. On one hand he owes obligation to his client and on the other hand he owes obligation to assist the Court in dispensing justice with fair hand. In the instant case the order, therefore, as it stands cannot be said to be illegal nor can it be said that it suffers from manifest error of law.
(3.) I am however of the view that in case the learned Advocate has appeared at a subsequent stage as has been stated in the supplementary affidavit then the Court should have taken a lenient view by fixing the case on the next date. It is indeed harsh to punish a litigant who is brought before a Court for commissions and omissions of a counsel. In anger and anguish sometimes courts have a tendency to take a drastic step but then on second thought but it has ample power to recall the said order provided the conduct of the lawyer is fair and bonafide. In the instant case I have reason to believe in the view of averments made in the supplementary affidavit that it was on account of pressure of work that inadvertently the mistake has happened and the learned Court should not have punished the applicant on the slight fault of the counsel.;