The main legal point established is that valid reasons for exemption from appearance should be considered by the court, and the issuance of warrants should be proportionate to the circumstances.

1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court') whereby the application filed by the petitioner under sub-section (21 of Section 70 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The petitioner, who is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Cases No. 1, Chittorgarh, has failed to appear before the Trial Court on 10.12.2013. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the Lower Court moved an application for dispensing with presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court on 10.12.2013, however, the same was not entertained and the Trial Court has directed to summon the petitioner through arrest warrant and has also directed to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the Trial Court under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., however, the same is dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.12.2013. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner' has failed to appear before the Trial Court on 10.12.2013 on account of marriage of his brother on the very same day. It is contended that the petitioner has informed his Counsel at Chittorgarh regarding his non-availability and the Counsel has also moved an application seeking examination from appearance before the Trial Court on 10.12.2013, however, the Trial Court rejected the said application in illegal manner. It is also contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. has also been illegally rejected by the Trial Court while observing that in the application for seeking exemption from appearance, there is no mention about the marriage of brother of the petitioner, but only it has been mentioned that on account of some domestic work, the petitioner is seeking exemption from appearance before the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if in the application for seeking exemption from appearance, the fact of marriage of the petitioner's brother has not been mentioned, it cannot be said that the said fact is incorrect. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is regularly attending the Trial Court and has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Trial Court on 10.12.2013, but the learned Trial Court has erred in summoning the petitioner through arrest warrant. It is contended that the arrest warrant issued by the Trial Court may be converted into bailable warrant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 251.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has prayed that this criminal misc. petition may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

7. In the application for seeking exemption from appearance, filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Trial Court, it has been mentioned that on account of some domestic work, his presence before the Trial Court may be exempted for a day. Though the fact regarding the marriage of the petitioner's brother has not been mentioned in the application, but it does not mean that the marriage of the petitioner's brother was not a domestic work. The factum of marriage of the petitioner's brother on 10.12.2013 has not been disputed by the prosecution.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper that the arrest warrant issued by the learned Trial Court on 10.12.2013 be converted into bailable warrant.

9.