JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the P.P. 2. This is an application under section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 18-7-83, issued by the learned A.C.M Chomu. It is prayed that the order of the learned A.C.M. be quashed. 3. The petitioner is being prosecuted in the Court of ACM Chomu under Section Cr.P.C. The case was fixed for 13-7-83 for recording evidence on behalf of the prosecution. On that date, the petitioner could not appear but his counsel was present in the Court. The Counsel submitted an application seeking exemption from personal attendance for that day, and the ground was that there was a marriage of the petitioner's uncle's son. In the application, he has also mentioned that he was prepared to cross examine the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP objected to the application and said that he will examine the witnesses only in the presence of the petitioner. Agreeing with the learned APP, the learned A.C.M. rejected the application of the learned counsel for the petitioner and ordered to issue non-bailable warrant for 5-8-83. and also ordered to forfeit the bail bonds of the petitioner. This order has been challenged in this Misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that these proceedings are under Chapter VIII Cr. PC and it has been argued that under this Chapter the Magistrate is not empowered to call upon the person in the Court, against whom the proceedings are pending to furnish surety for his appearance. It has also been argued that it is well settled law that in the proceedings under Chapter VIII, Cr P.C. the person is not taken as an accused. So, the provisions of Chapter 33, Cr. P.C. regarding bail and bonds do not apply to these proceedings. To support his argument, he has produced a copy of the judgment of this court dated 2-7-79 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 140/70 State of Rajasthan v. Tarendra Singh . In this judgment it has been held that the persons against whom proceeding under Chapter VIII, Cr. PC are taken cannot be said to be an accused of an offence. and as such provisions of bail do not apply. Thus in view of the position of law and the judgment cited above. In this judgment it has been held that the persons against whom proceeding under Chapter VIII, Cr. PC are taken cannot be said to be an accused of an offence. and as such provisions of bail do not apply. Thus in view of the position of law and the judgment cited above. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that in the proceeding under I Chapter VIII, Criminal P.C. the petitioner cannot be termed as an accused and as such the order of the learned ACM for submitting bail and bonds is also not correct. 5. However, this leaving aside the legal position, on the merits of case also, I do not agree with the orders of the learned ACM. He was not justified in passing such an order. The case was fixed for recording statements of the witnesses and the counsel for the petitioner has submitted an application seeking personal exemption of the petitioner and that he was prepared to cross-examine the witnesses and will not dispute the identity of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the learned ACM should have granted the application and should have exempted the personal attendance of the petitioner for that day and should have permitted the counsel to cross examine the witnesses. But he rejected the application and passed the order forfeiting the bail bonds and also directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. This is certainly an abuse of the process of law. The order of the learned ACM is, therefore, not justified and cannot be maintained. 6. At this admission stage, the petition under section 482 Cr. PC is accepted. The order of the learned ACM, Chomu dated 18-7-83 is quashed The next date fixed is 5-8-83. The petitioner directed is to appear on that date in the court of ACM Chomu. The non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall not be executed.Petition Allowed. *******