JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application under section 482, Cr. PC has been preferred against the order dated 30th Jan. 85, passed by the SDM, Gangapur City, in a case under section 107, Cr. PC. When their application under section 107, Cr. PC was before the learned Magistrate on 30th Jan. 85, the petitioners were absent. The learned advocate for Kanhaiyalal and Roopnarain filed an application under section 113, Cr. PC before the learned Magistrate, requesting to issue summonses or warrants-as the case might be, directing them to be present in the court. The learned Magistrate found that the non-petitioners in spite of notice, were not present. So, he ordered to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioners for their presence in court on 6th February, 85. The said order of the learned Magistrate is being challenged here. 3. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that on 30th Jan. 85, Mr. R.K. Sharma, the advocate for the petitioners had filed an application in the court requesting that personal attendance of the petitioners be exempted, and they might be permitted to be represented by their counsel. From a perusal of the order dated 30th Jan. 85, it seems that the learned SDM has not mentioned in the order about the presentation of the said application. No order was passed on the application, filed on behalf of the petitioner. This was not the correct way of working of the learned SDM, Gangapur City. When an application for exempting personal attendance of the petitioners was filed before him he should have passed some orders on that application. Then, he should have also mentioned about the presentation of the said application, in his order dated 30th Jan. 85. But, the learned SDM has not mentioned in his order about the presentation of the application by the petitioner nor has he made a mention that the application filed by the petitioners for exempting personal attendance, was rejected. So, the order of the learned SDM, is absolutely an illegal and incorrect order, which amounts to clear abuse of the process of law. That order of the learned SDM, Gangapur City, cannot, therefore, be maintained. 4. The application filed under section 482, Cr. PC is, therefore, accepted. The order dated 30th Jan. 85, passed by the learned SDM, Gangapur City, is set aside. That order of the learned SDM, Gangapur City, cannot, therefore, be maintained. 4. The application filed under section 482, Cr. PC is, therefore, accepted. The order dated 30th Jan. 85, passed by the learned SDM, Gangapur City, is set aside. The non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners, be not executed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Court of learned SDM, Gangapur City, on 9th Feb. 85.Petition accepted. *******