IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-5210 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 03.09.2009 Jumma Ram ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 17.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (Annexure P-1) wherein costs of Rs.3,000/- qua each of the three witnesses, who were present, and Rs.10,000/- for being deposited in the State exchequer, is highly excessive in the light of the fact that the absence of the counsel for the petitioner Mr.J.S.Malhi, Advocate, before the lower Court was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was for the reason that the said Advocate had to undergo an eye-operation on 6.2.2009 at Jindal Institute of Medical Sciences, Hisar. Due to this operation, he did not appear in any of the Courts at Hisar or Fatehabad till 21.2.2009. Counsel, on this basis, contends that the fine which has been imposed by the Court is unjustified. However, he submits that keeping in view the genuine reason for non- appearance of his counsel leading to an adjournment in the said case, if the amount of fine is reduced, the petitioner would be in a position to deposit Crl.Misc.No.M-5210 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the same. For these contentions, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the medical certificate issued to Mr.J.S.Malhi, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court. Counsel for the State does not dispute this factual position. However, he submits that due to non-appearance of the defence witnesses, the trial of the case has been delayed and the witnesses who were present will now again have to be summoned and will have to again come to the Court and waste their time as well as the precious time of the Court and, therefore, some fine must be imposed upon the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one and a half year. It is also not in dispute that the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court, Mr.J.S.Malhi, Advocate, had undergone an eye-operation on 6.2.2009 at Jindal Institute for Medical Sciences, Hisar and a medical certificate to that effect has been placed on record. It is also not in dispute that the said counsel did not appear in any of the Courts in Hisar or Fatehabad till 21.2.2009 from the date of his operation i.e. 6.2.2009. The adjournment which had to be granted by the Court below due to non-presence of the counsel for the petitioner, therefore cannot be said to be intentional absence on the part of the counsel for the petitioner. However, keeping in view the fact that the witnesses were present and the Court time was wasted, it would be just and equitable that the fine which has been imposed by the trial Court upon the petitioner is reduced. Accordingly, it is ordered that the costs to be paid for each of the three witnesses shall be Rs.300/- instead of Rs.3,000/-. Besides this, the Crl.Misc.No.M-5210 of 2009 (O&M) -3- petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1000/- as costs in the Treasury. The order dated 17.2.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, is modified to the extent above. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 03, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE