( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public prosecutor.

( 2 ) IT is represented by the petitioner that the court below ordered non-bailable warrants in a casual way even though petitioner under Section 317 Cr. P. C. , was filed by the petitioner for dispense with the attendance of the accused. It is further stated that the court below dismissed the application no. 6747 of 2002 on 28-11-2002 making the following order:"heard. No urgency to condone absence as coming for examination. Petition is dismissed. "

( 3 ) IT is further stated that reasons had been explained as to why the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court. It is sta ted that the petitioner filed a petition under section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, hereinafter referred to as the code for short, to recall the warrant, bearing no. 6866 of 2002 on 2-12-2002 by giving all relevant information and also filed doctor s prescription. But, however, the said application was also dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner was not present on 2-12-2002. It is further stated that the presence of the accused is not necessary for recalling a warrant