Crl.Misc.No.M-23921 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: August 18, 2010. Crl.Misc.No.M-23921 of 2010 (O&M). Smt.Premwati .. Petitioner VERSUS Ravinder Kumar . Respondent *** PRESENT Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is stated to be an old lady aged more than 65 years as is depicted from the record of Bhim Sain Sachar General Hospital, Panipat. She is facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is apparent from the order dated 04.06.2010, passed by Ms Kumud Gugnani, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat, that case was transferred to the said Court but on account of illness of the petitioner, an application was filed for exemption from personal appearance. Not satisfied with the record produced, the application for exemption was dismissed and bail . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-23921 of 2010 (O&M) bonds of the petitioner were cancelled, issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the record of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak as well as Bhim Sain Sachar General Hospital, Panipat, indicating that she had been receiving treatment of both medical institutes. Legality and propriety of the order dated 04.06.2010 has been questioned by filing this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Without expression of any opinion regarding the maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice, it is observed that the judicial discipline reflected in the order by the Presiding Officer is appreciated but at the same time the humanitarian touch which is required, appears to be missing as is apparent from the tone of the judicial order. Counsel for the petitioner informs that the case is fixed for recording of the statement of the complainant witnesses and the petitioner was prevented by reasons beyond her control to appear in the Court. The trial Court, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is an old lady and that she was admitted in the hospital on account of her illness, should have been exempted from the personal appearance. In case the Court was of the opinion that some delay was being caused on account of non-appearance of the petitioner, the Court had got a discretion to exempt the personal . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-23921 of 2010 (O&M) appearance of the petitioner and record the evidence in the absence of the petitioner but in presence of counsel for the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. The provisions of relaxation of strict rules of appearance have been made in the statute to be exercised by the Courts as and when required, in the interest of justice and on humanitarian grounds. A balance has to be struck between the expeditious disposal of the cases and the personal liberty of the accused facing trials. The impugned order appears to be harsh and is hereby set aside in the interest of justice. It is ordered that the petitioner will put in appearance before the trial Court on 27.08.2010 and in case of her doing so, she shall be released on bail on her furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of said Court. In case the Court felt that any inconvenience was being caused to the witnesses, the Court could have awarded expenses of adjournment to the complainant or his witnesses as per provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C., (Explanation 2). Disposed of in limine. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 18, 2010. rka . . . 3