JUDGMENT The petitioners are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh who dismissed the application of the petitioners filed on their behalf praying for exemption in respect of their attendance before the Court. The ground which was shown was that the petitioner had gone to SORAUJI for immersing the urns of the mother of the petitioner No. 1 Kishanlal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge pointed out in his order rejecting the said application that the said application was not mentioning the date of death of the mother of Kishanlal as well as it was not mentioning the place where the appellants had gone, He opined that the said application was vague and was not pointing out the justifiable cause for the absence of the petitioners. Shri Jaisingh submitted that the learned Advocate who submitted the application would not have been knowing the exact details, and therefore, the petitioners should not be exposed to punishment on account of the mistake committed by him. Shri Prakash Verma, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate not be available for trial. While dealing with such applications, the Court should be well conversant with the things happening around us. The Courts are bound to inform themselves of the habits and normal routine of the litigants who come before them. Pretrial presence of the accused should not look as punishment. When the Advocates are present representing the accused, the Court should adopt the broader approach while dealing with the difficulties expressed by such litigants in attending the Courts. The Magistrates and Judges should inform themselves that the villagers do find many difficulties for getting the transport and coming to Courts for attending their business, suits and cases. The buses and trains are not so regular. Therefore, harsh view should not be taken by the Courts while dealing with application meant for condoning the defaults in marking the presence or praying for exemption from attending the Court. Bonafides have to be judged with broader approach. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not done so and, therefore, the order which has been passed by him and which is under the challenge has to be set aside and their revision has to be entertained and allowed as the impugned order which is improper and causing prejudice to the right of liberty of the petitioners. Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not done so and, therefore, the order which has been passed by him and which is under the challenge has to be set aside and their revision has to be entertained and allowed as the impugned order which is improper and causing prejudice to the right of liberty of the petitioners. Thus, in view of the discussion as above, the revision petition is hereby entertained and is allowed. The order which has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall not be subjected to any punishment or penalty for the default in marking their presence on 28.7.94 before the Trial Court. They should remain present before the trial Court punctually on every date unless they are prevented by reasonable and justifiable cause which their lawyer should bring to the notice of the Court. The record of the case be despatched to the Trial Court as early as possible.