Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Durga Prasad Choudhary vs Amar Singh And Bal Singh on 4 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(2)WLN470
JUDGMENT Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. These two typical cases of gross abuse of process of court where the prosecution has become persecution. Shri Durga Prasad Choudhary aged about 78 years, Proprietor and Chief Editor of Nav Jyoti is facing the charge of defamation for publication of news item regarding the Birla Public School. Prosecution evidence was examined and thereafter the accused were examined on 14th June, 1983 the case was kept for defence evidence, which was closed on 6-3-1984 and the case was kept for arguments and judgment. The arguments were not heard on various dates for some reason or the other and thereafter on 29th May, 1984 bail bonds were forfeited and non bailable warrant was issued.
2. It is surprising that in a case of defamation after evidence of both parties had been closed and the accused had been examined and the case was in the process of arguments, this extreme step of issuing non-bailable warrants for the presence of the accused at the time of arguments was adopted by the Magistrate.
3. The Judicial Magistrate's decorum, decency and status lies in restraint and issuing dignified orders consistent with human dignity, rather than exhibiting unwarranted echolarted sense of ego and authority by issuing non-bailable warrants to harass and humiliate accused more so when the case is of defamation against vetron, leading journalist, freedom fighter of the State. It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate instead of showing restraint by hearing arguments and fixing the case for judgment started persecution by ordering issue of non-bailable warrant, when there was no occasion for doing so. In a petty case of defamation, the accused have already been facing the trial from 1979 to 1984 and when the Magistrate was required to discharge his final duty by giving his judgment he exhibited his exhibition of authority by issuing non-bailable warrant. Of course, if the case was fixed for judgment and the Magistrate wanted presence of the accused, then there could have been some justification, but merely for hearing arguments in a case which has remained pending for about 5 years, issue of non-bailable warrants is abuse of process of court.
4. Constantly, the impugned order for issuing non-bailable warrant is quashed and so also the order for forfeiture of bail bonds. The Magistrate concerned, would now hear the arguments and decide the case according to law. On the date fixed for judgment, the Magistrate may call the accused and the learned Counsel undertakes to produce the accused when so called by the Magistrate on the date of the judgment.
5. Both the applications, under Sections 482, Cr. P.C. are accepted as indicated above.