Judgment JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagore dated 3/4/1987 whereby the learned lower court has accepted the application of thy petitioner Shrawan Kumar for grant of exemption and has further ordered that in future, if petitioner Shrawan Kumar wants to take any adjournment on the basis of his heart ailment, he must produce a Certificate from the Doctor posted in Government Dispensary of Government Hospital and unless he does that, no exemption will be granted. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this petition briefly stated are: that on 11/12/1986, two applications were filed on behalf of accused Shrawan Kumar under section 317, Cr. P. C. By the first application, which has been decided by this impugned order, exemption for that day was sought and that has, of course, been granted but the learned lower court has observed that in future, if accused-petitioner Shrawan Kumar seeks any exemption, he must produce a certificate of a Government Hospital/dispensary. It is this order, which is under challenge. ( 3 ) MR. Rana Mal Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the second application for grant of exemption during the trial or till further orders has not been decided by the learned lower court. It should have been decided and the petitioner Shrawan Kumar should have been granted exemption because he is a heart patient. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Ranamal Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mrs. Kamlesh Joshi, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 5 ) SO far as the first application is concerned, it has been decided in favour of petitioner Shrawan Kumar by accepting the certificate which was filed by him, and exemption for a particular date was granted to the petitioner. However, so far as this application is concerned, Mr. Mehta challenges the direction of the learned lower court that in future, for grant of the exemption, he will have to furnish a certificate of the Government/hospital. However, so far as this application is concerned, Mr. Mehta challenges the direction of the learned lower court that in future, for grant of the exemption, he will have to furnish a certificate of the Government/hospital. In the city like Bombay, where a number of private Hospitals are working and they give best services to the people and as such, it does not appear reasonable to insist upon the petitioner to submit a certificate from a Government Dispensary/hospital. Applications for grant of exemption should be considered on the basis of the certificate issued by a competent Doctor and not on the basis of a certificate issued by the Govt. Dispensary Hospital. Nobody, who is patient of heart-disease can be forced to get himself treated from the Government. Hospital, If in the circumstances of a case, the learned Magistrate feels that the certificate produced by the petitioner is false or bogus, the learned lower court can summon he Doctor along with the relevant record and can examine him before granting exemption but it cannot insist upon the accused to furnish a certificate from the Government Hospital/dispensary. To this extent, the order of the learned lower court is erroneous and it deserves to be quashed. ( 6 ) MR. Mehta has submitted that his application for grant of exemption till further orders has not been decided by the learned lower court. I also find from the order that it has not been decided and so, the learned lower court is directed to decide that application on merits. ( 7 ) MR. Mehta has further submitted that the court should be liberal in granting exemption. In this respect, he has placed reliance on S. Nihal Singh v. Arjandas and Dhiria v. Jainarain. It is true that if conduct of the trial is not hampered and if exemption is sought by the accused and that does not prejudice the case of the prosecution, ordinarily exemption may be granted or may not be granted keeping in view the gravity of the offence. It is true that if conduct of the trial is not hampered and if exemption is sought by the accused and that does not prejudice the case of the prosecution, ordinarily exemption may be granted or may not be granted keeping in view the gravity of the offence. Simply be cause someone is heart-patient, that is no ground to grant him exemption, if his personal appearance is otherwise essential for the conduct of the trial but usually, a heart patient is entitled to a compassionate view by the court in matters of exemption and so, the application of the accused-petitioner Shrawrn Kumar be considered in that light-keeping in view the allegations made against him and the principles laid down in the aforesaid two authorities. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition is accepted in part and the direction of the learned lower court that in future, for grant of exemption, the petitioner will have to file a certificate from a Government Hospital/dispensary is quashed. The learned lower court is further directed to decide the application for the petitioner for grant of exemption till further orders pending before it keeping in view the observation made hereinabove. Revision partly allowed.