JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals involving common question of law a re preferred against two judgments dated 7-1-1976 of the Sessions Judge, Balotra, whereby the appellant was convicted in each case under section 174 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. Appellant was summoned in Sessions case No. 10/75 State v. Bhagirath to appear as a witness on 24-10-1975 but he failed to obey the summons. Bailable warrants were issued against him and also a notice under section 350 Cr.P.C. as to show cause why he should not be punished for disobeying the summons for 24-10-1975. The appellant was required to submit his reply on 13-11-1975 but he failed to do so. The case was adjourned to 13-12-1975 and the appellant was summon ain directed to appear before the court on this date by a which was duly served upon him on 21-11-1975. It appears that a fresh show cause notice vas issued to the appellant for his willful absence from the court on 13-12-1975 The appellant was to show cause on 7th of January, 1976. The appellant failed to submit any reply or appear before the court on 7-1-1976, earned Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the appellant in his absence on these facts in the manner stated above. 3. The other appeal arises because of the disobedience of summons a sessions case No. 31/75 State v. Modsingh. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that his conviction is vitiated in both the trials as the impugned orders were recorded without any evidence and without securing the presence of the appellant in the cases. I have considered the argument carefully. Section 350 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "350. I have considered the argument carefully. Section 350 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "350. Summary procedure for punishment for non-attendance by a witness in obedience to summons (1) If any witness being summoned to appear before a Criminal Court is legally bound to appear at a certain place and time in obedience to the summons and without just excuse neglects or refuses to attend at that place or time or departs from the place where he has to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, and the Court before which the witness is to appear is satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of justice that such a witness should be tried summarily, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and alter giving the offender an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence him to fine not exceeding one hundred rupees. (2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trial." It would, therefore, appear that in such cases the court has to follow as far as practicable the procedure prescribed for summary trials. The procedure for a summary trial is almost the same as that of a summons case, as is evident from section 262 Cr. P.C. I have carefully gone through sections 262 and 264 Cr. P.C. and in my opinion before one can be convicted even in a summary trial, his presence has to be secured before the court. As already observed, the presence of the appellant was not secured in both the trials and the finding was recorded in his absence and in that view the finding and the conviction stand vitiated. The learned Public Prosecutor could not advance any argument against this view. 5. I, therefore, accept both the appeals and acquit the appellant of the offences under section 350 Cr. P.C. The conviction and the sentence awarded by the trial court is hereby set aside.Appeal Allowed. *******