Judgment : 1. The petitioner in both the cases is one and the same. On one hearing he was absent. Though a petition under section 317, Cr.P.C. was filed, it appears, the learned Magistrate refused to condone his absence, but chose to issue N.B.W. Thereafter, a petition to recall the warrant was filed by the petitioner in both the cases, without making his appearance. It seems the petition was dismissed. Therefore, these revisions. 2. This Court time and again is telling the trial courts not to be harsh in condoning the absence of the accused for valid reasons under section 317, Cr.P.C. It is a benevolent provision that has to be liberally used, unless, it has to be refused for valid reasons. Unfortunately, because of such a refusal, the trial is delayed and the accused has to come before this court and get an order. Though, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of non bailable warrant, it is only in the nature of advice to the trial court not to indulge in such wholesale dismissal of the petitions filed under section 317 Cr.P.C. 3. Taking into consideration the relevant aspects, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Court on 13th August, 2001 to which date, I am told, the case stands posted and then file an application for recall of non bailable warrant and the learned Magistrate is also directed to take a lenient view in the matter and dispose of the petition on the same day. The purpose of issuance of warrant is only for procuring the accused to face the trial and it is not to harass the accused. 4. With the above direction, the petitions stand disposed of.