The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of protecting the fundamental and legal rights of citizens in criminal trials, especially in petty cases, and the proper exercise of discretion by the magistrate in granting exemptions to accused individuals.

( 1 ) THE question to be adjudicated is "whether the Magistrate trying the cases of petty nature should grant exemption to the accused who has been represented by an advocate or counsel, and wants to get his case tried in accordance with provisions of law.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case seems to be that petitioners were found carrying some school boys - seven in number - in the bus when they were apprehended by the police who registered a crime against them for infringing the provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience ). Shri Trivedi submitted that the petitioners want to contest the case only because they want to oblige those school going boys for enabling them to reach the school in time. Shri Trivedi further submitted that the petitioners want to challenge the improper and arbitrary attitude of the police officials in such case who do not bother much for humanitarian spirit. Shri Trivedi submitted that the offence is punishable with fine only which would extend to sum of Rs. 5000/- with minimum fine of Rupees 2000/ -. He pointed out that the Court has been granted the discretion to punish the offenders with less amount of fine in deserving cases by passing speaking orders and providing reasons therefor.

( 3 ) SHRI Trivedi submitted that it being a petty offence, an application was moved by the petitioners for getting exemption, however, learned Magistrate rejected the prayer by coming to the conclusion that the provisions of S. 205, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience), are applicable to only PARDANASHIN women. Learned Magistrate also appears to be harbouring the impressing that such concession cannot be granted to the male beings if they happen to be the accused before the Magistrate. Shri Trivedi further submitted that learned Magistrate did not interpret the provisions of law properly and, therefore, landed in error by rejecting the prayer of the petitioners and, therefore, the order which is being assailed by this petition, be set aside.

( 4 ) SHRI Prakas Verma, D. G. A. appearing for the prosecution submitted that the present order is interlocutory and, therefore, revision petition cannot be entertained by this Court in view of S. 397 (2) of the Code. Secondly, he submitted that it is the discretion of the Magistrate whether to grant the exemption to the accused and being it so, it is not vested right of the accused to get exemption. He submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable in law and, therefore, it be dismissed in limine.

( 5 ) THIS question has to be sorted out finally for removing the improper concepts of law which some Magistrates are harbouring in their minds, which has resulted in prejudice to those unfortunate citizens who happen to be brought before the Court being indicted for commission of a crime of petty nature or of not a serious nature. Therefore, this Court decides the point at length for giving a guidance to the trial Courts and for revealing various facets of the matter which has been indicated mainly for the purpose of protecting the fundamental and legal rights of the citizens keeping in view the spirit behind the Articles of Constitution of India.

( 6 ) ARTICLES 20 and 21 of Constitution speak of some fundamental rights which have been conferred for the purpose of protecting the liberty and dignity of the citizens in context with criminal trials. Article 21 provides that-"no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. "keeping in view this dictum of Art. 21, all the Courts are bound to interpret properly and correctly the legal precedents for the purpose of keeping pace and consistency with procedural, established by law while conducting a criminal trial. The Constitution of India has provided fundamental rights for the purpose of welfare activities of the State and for ensuring a democratic life and rul