Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Magistrate, Chhittorgarh and arises under the following circumstances.
(2.) IN a case under sec. 326 and 304 of the INdian Penal Code, Dr. Vishwamitra was required to appear as a witness for the prosecution in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Begun. He failed to appear on 14. 6. 61, 13. 7. 61 and 22. 11. 61 despite the service of summons on him. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was therefore, forced to issue a bailable warrant against the witness requiring him to attend his court on 11. 12. 61. On the same date a notice requiring the witness to show cause why he should not be punished for not attending the court on the aforesaid dates as required by sec. 485 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued to him. The witness appeared in the court on 11. 12. 1961 and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate who had taken cognisance of the offence recorded the statement of the witness. He was questioned as to why he should not be fined for his not attending the court on 14. 6. 1961, 13. 7. 61 and 27. 11. 61 inspite of service of summons on him and he replied that he was unable to say anything in that connection. He was asked whether summons marked Exs. P1, P2 and P3 were served upon him and he replied in the affirmative. For his non-attendance in the court on 27. 11. 61 he gave an explanation that because he was required to attend a surgical camp at Pisangan, he could not attend the court in obedience to the summons. But with regard to his non-attendance on 14. 6. 1961 and 13. 7. 61 he did not give any satisfactory explanation. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was not satisfied with the explanation given by the witness and holding that the absence of the witness on the aforesaid dates was without just excuse, imposed a fine of Rs, 31 upon him. Dr. Vishwamitra filed a revision application against this order in the court of the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh. The learned District Magistrate recommends that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh be set aside because he had failed to give a show cause notice to the witness as required by sec. 485a of the Code. As already stated both a bailable warrant and a notice to show cause as required by sec. 485a were issued against the witness on 27th November, 1961. Though the warrant was returned after service but notice under sec. 485a was not so received. Sec. 485a lays down summary procedure for punishing witnesses who without just excuse neglect or refuse to attend the court in obedience to summons. It also requires that before a sentence of fine is imposed on the witness he should be given an opportunity of showing cause against it. In the present case it appears from the proceeding of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate that he had duly complied with the aforesaid provisions of law. Not only that he cared to give a notice in writing to the witness but before he started proceedings against him he again asked him to show cause why a fine should not be imposed upon him for his non-attendance in the court on three consecutive dates inspite of service of summons upon him. It also appears that the witness had come prepared to show cause and that is why he showed his preparedness to produce the order requiring him to attend the surgical camp at Pisangan on 27th November, 1961. This shows that the notice issued under sec. 485a upon the witness must have also reached him though it was not returned to the court after service. Even if his explanation for not attending the court on 27th November be regarded as sufficient there was no just excuse for not attending the court on previous two dates i. e. , 14. 6. 61 and 13. 7. 61. Sec. 485a is a special provision introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code by the Amending Act No. 26 of 1955 with the object of empowering criminal courts to try witnesses summarily for disobedience of its summons. When service of summons is effected on a witness it becomes his duty to attend the court on the appointed date unless he is prevented from doing so for unavoidable reasons. From those who are in the service of the State, observance of law is expected in a greater degree and if they flout the process of the court then it becomes its duty to punish them for its contempt by having recourse to the provisions of above section. Very often criminal cases where the accused are in confinement have to be adjourned because of the non-appearance of witnesses and it works a great hardship upon them. It is therefore, necessary that persons specially Government officials who are required to appear as witnesses in criminal cases should attend the court in obedience to the summons unless they are unable to do so for any special reasons. In the instant case I find that Dr. Vishwa-mitra had reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action but he was unable to satisfy the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for his non-attendance on atleast two dates i. e. , 14th June and 13th July, 1961. Besides the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was appealable under sec. 486 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no such appeal was preferred. I, therefore, feel constrained to disagree with the learned District Magistrate. There is no force in this reference and it is hereby rejected. .;