M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record of the proceedings of the lower court.
(2.) IN this case a police report for offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC was filed before the learned Magistrate on 20.12.83. On that day Hanuman, accused, was present and process was issued against Dashrath Singh and Prahlad, accused. Dashrath Singh was granted exemption from personal attendance through his counsel on the adjourned date of hearing, i.e. 11.5.84. Prahlad, accused, had also appeared on 3.7.84. It appears that thereafter Prahlad, accused, did not appear and warrants of arrest were issued against him. Rest of the two accused. Hanuman and Dashrath Singh, continued to attend the court, Prahlad accused appeared on 6.2.86 and was released on bail. Thereafter Dashrath Singh, accused, against did not appear and the case is still being adjourned for procuring the attendance of Dashrath Singh. The proceedings of the lower court present a sorry state of affairs and exhibit lack of knowledge of relevant provisions of law on the part of the trial Magistrate. Once the accused had put in appearance through their counsel, the case could have very easily been proceeded in the absence of the accused persons as their counsel could have helped the progress of the case. Even if one or the other accused had disappeared, on one or two dates and even more and his attendance was not being procured, it was open to the learned Magistrate to have separated the trial of that accused and proceeded with the trial of those, who had put in appearance before him. The ability and competancy of a Magistrate, or for that matter of any court, lie in making progress of the case, when that can be done by granting exemption to an accused through his counsel and not in adjourning the case on the ground of the absence of the accused, whose interests are duly safeguarded by his counsel in his absence. Exemption from personal attendance through counsel should not be made a ground of adjournment of the case. Exemption should be granted to make progress in the trial and to delay the trial.
(3.) IN the present case for a number of times the warrants were issued but they were never returned, excuted or un -executed. The State, which is the prosecutor in such cases, is expected to proceed against the officials manning the prosecuting and the process serving machinery. Successful prosecutions help prevention of crime which is one of the main responsibility of the State for the development and progress of its polity and society. If prosecutions are callously and carelessly taken by the State machinery, it may lead to lawlessness in the end which is a situation to be avoided at all cost in any society, developed or under - developed.;