C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) ORDER dated 8-8-2002 issuing NBW against the petitioner, who is cited as a witness in C. C. No. 62 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chirala is the subject matter of this petition. ( 2 ) ONE P. Bala Sankar Rao filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 4 for offences under Sections 365, 342 and 383 read with Section 34, IPC citing the petitioner and others as witnesses on his behalf, which was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The same was registered as Crime No. 12 of 2001 by the Chirala II Town Police. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 365, 342 and 383 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against respondents 2 to 4 herein. The learned Magistrate posted the case for trial to 1-8-2002, after framing charges and issued summons to witnesses. Since the petitioner and others were not present on 8-8-2002 though they were served with summons, the learned Magistrate issued N. B. Ws. to the petitioner and other witnesses and posted the case to 16-8-2002. On 16-8-2002 some witnesses, to whom N. B. Ws. , were issued, were present and were examined in chief, and the case was posted in 22-8-2002 since the counsel for the accused sought time for their cross-examination. Though the witnesses who were examined in chief filed petitions to recall the N. B. Ws. issued against them, the learned Magistrate dismissed those petitions and remanded them to judicial custody till 22-8-2002. Only after those witnesses filed applications for bail were they ordered to be released on their executing a personal bond for Rs. 2,000/- each, by the order dated 19-8-2002 of the learned Magistrate. Apprehending that he also may be sent to judicial remand, without recalling the N. B. W. if he were to attend Court to give evidence, petitioner filed this petition with a prayer to quash the order directing issuance of N. B. W. against him. ( 3 ) WHEN the case came up for admission, on the basis of the averments in the petition. ( 3 ) WHEN the case came up for admission, on the basis of the averments in the petition. I have called for the remarks of the learned Magistrate, who by her letter dated 6-9-2002 stated that the petitioner and other witnesses, having received summons for the hearing on 1-8-2002, attended the Court on 1-8-2002 and filed a petition seeking adjournment and so she adjourned the case to 8-8-2002 and that on 8-8-2002 those witnesses, without attending Court, filed petitions seeking adjournment and so she issued N. B. Ws. to them, and that on 16-8-2002 five out of six witnesses to whom N. B. Ws. were issued were present in Court and filed petitions under Section 70 (2) Cr. P. C. to recall the N. B. Ws. issued against them, on the ground that they could not attend the earlier hearing because they went to Ongole for the video coverage of Advocates Relay Hunger Strike, and as none of them are videographers, feeling that their absence was for not a valid reason, she dismissed their petitions for recalling N. B. Ws. and remanded them to judicial custody, and thereafter on their applications, she released them on bail on their personal bonds. From the remarks of the learned Magistrate, it is seen that in spite of the witnesses filing petitions to recall N. B. Ws. issued against them, she remanded them to judicial custody, dismissing the petitions to recall N. B. Ws. , issued against them. They were in judicial remand for three days for their default in appearing before Court to give evidence. ( 4 ) SINCE administration of justice is a very solemn duty Officers administering justice, especially criminal justice which involves the liberty and reputation of individuals should exercise the powers, especially the power of sending persons to judicial custody, vested in them with great care and circumspection because personal liberty of individuals, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, is involved. Since Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law, care should be taken to see if person ordered to be sent to judicial remand can be deprived of his liberty under the provision of any statute or not. A witness in a case is different from a party to the case. A witness in a case is different from a party to the case. Parties to proceedings before Court have a duty to attend Court for every hearing. Witnesses, normally, do not have any personal interest in the case or its result. So they cannot be treated as criminals merely because they are cited as witnesses in a criminal case in fact witnesses assist the Court in deciding the various points that arise for consideration in a case. Therefore they are entitled to all the courtesy which a free citizen is entitled to from the fellow beings. If served with summons to give evidence, a witness is bound to attend Court, and be present in Court from 10. 30 a. m. till his evidence is recorded or till the case is adjourned, which, in a way, is a great inconvenience to him. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many persons loath to come to be cited as witness in criminal cases for various reasons. If the witnesses are sent to judicial remand for their absence, it may well neigh be impossible to secure any witness in a criminal case. ( 5 ) V As per Section 350, Cr. P. C. when a witness fails to attend Court in obedience to the summons issued to him, if after a summary enquiry it is found that he absented himself without a just cause, the maximum punishment that can be imposed on him is a fine of Rs. 100/- and nothing more. The said Section does not contemplate a sentence of imprisonment on a witness disobeying the summons. No other provision in Cr. P. C. also empowers a Magistrate to remand a witness to judicial custody, if he fails to attend Court. Obviously the learned Magistrate was under the impression that since she has power to issue N. B. Ws. to a witness, she also has the power to send a witness to judicial remand and sent the witnesses to judicial remand. Power to issue N. B. W. should not be mistaken as power to send the person brought in execution of N. B. W. to judicial custody. N. B. W. would be issued only to secure the presence of a witness who failed to appear before the Court after receiving summons, or a person who is evading summons. Power to issue N. B. W. should not be mistaken as power to send the person brought in execution of N. B. W. to judicial custody. N. B. W. would be issued only to secure the presence of a witness who failed to appear before the Court after receiving summons, or a person who is evading summons. After the witness is brought before the Court in execution of the N. B. W, the Court has to deal with him under Section 350, Cr. P. C. but cannot send him to judicial remand as there is no ssuch provision in the Cr. P. C. Therefore it is clear that the learned Magistrate was in error in dismissing the petitions filed by witnesses to recall N. B. Ws. , issued against them, and in sending them to judicial remand, as if they were accused of a non-bailable offence. ( 6 ) THE learned Magistrate sending some of the witnesses in the case to judicial remand after dismissing their petitions to recall the N. B. Ws. , issued against them and keeping them in custody for a few days, obviously must have caused apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he would also be met with the same fate if he were to approach the Magistrate with a prayer to recall N. B. W. issued against him. This case therefore warrants exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. and order recall of the N. B. W. issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner, on some conditions. ( 7 ) THE N. B. W. issued against the petitioner is ordered to be recalled. Petitioner is directed to execute a Bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) before the learned Magistrate on or before 11-10-2002 undertaking to appear before the Court in C. C. No. 62 of 2001 on the date to be fixed by the learned Magistrate for trial. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Order accordingly.