JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, CJ.—These three cases are being taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. It appears that respondent S. Zohar Zaidi is functioning as Superintendent of Police Kangra at Dharamshala. His presence was required as a prosecution witness to depose as such in the Court of learned Chiefj adicial Magistrate, Mandi in Criminal Case FIR No. 28/98 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. It appears that on a few occasions he did not appear in the Court in response to the summons served upon him to attend the Court as a prosecution witness to depose in the aforesaid case and accordingly proceedings were drawn against him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Mandi. Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2003 relates to the order passed on 11/7/2003 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby, in terms of Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has convicted the respondent under the aforesaid Section and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 3. In Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2003, a complaint has been filed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the respondent under Section 174 of Indian Penal Code for not attending his Court on 15.3.2003 despite the allegation that, in pursuance to the order passed on 15.2.2003 and the execution of bailable warrant qua him, the respondent did not appear in the Court on 15.3.2003 as a witness. This apart there is also an allegation in the complaint that respondent had filed a false affidavit regarding the illness of his mother, justifying his absence f/om appearing in the Court. 4. Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2003 relates to an order passed on 10.4.2003 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, wherein, referring to the issuance of show-cause notice in terms of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned CJM has passed an order that a complaint be filed against the respondent under Section 174 IPC and apparently because of this order passed on 10.4.2003, the complaint under Section 174 IPC has in fact been filed against the respondent wherein the allegation against the respondent is that he despite being summoned to appear as a witness on 15.2.2003 pursuant to the order passed on 15.1.2003, did not appear and that even earlier also he had omitted to attend the Court on 18.12.2002 and 15.1.2003. The Criminal complaint under Section 174 IPC forming the subject matter of Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2003 relates to the respondents non-appearance in the Court on 15.3.2003 whereas complaint filed under Section 174 IPC forming the subject matter of Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2003 relates to respondents non-appearance on 15.2.2003 and on earlier dates, i.e. on 18.12.2002 and 15.1.2003. 5. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the state who has very kindly assisted me in the disposal of these cases. 6. At the outset I must observe without any hesitation that these three cases do appear to be result of a little over-reaction by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. I am saying so because the material on record does indicate and suggest that perhaps respondent could not attend the Court as a prosecution witness on the dates he was summoned because of either his pre-occupation with law and order duties relating to the arrangement for the ensuing general elections to H.P. Vidhansabha, or because of the illness of his mother. The event of the holding of the elections to the Vidhansabha was a fact well known to every body and the respondent holding the important post of a District Superintendent of Police undoubtedly was a person who was known to be associated closely and intimately in the maintenance of law and order in his District. Also, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt upon or raise any suspicion with the certificate produced by the respondent with respect to the illness of his mother nor could it be held to be a forged, fake or unreliable document and therefore, there does not seem to be any substance in the allegation that the respondent had filed a false affidavit with respect to the illness of his mother, this having been cited as a reason for his non-appearance in the court as a witness. 7. Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates that whoever being legally bound to attend in person at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons etc., if intentionally omits to attend, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 or both and if the failure relates to a summons etc. 500 or both and if the failure relates to a summons etc. issued by a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000 or both. What is noticeable in Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code also is that the omission to attend must be intentional. From a reading of the aforesaid two complaints as also the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate prior to the filing of these complaints, I feel that perhaps, there was no material whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have come to a prima facie conclusion and could have formed a prima facie opinion that the non-appearance of the respondent was intentional. After all, the respondent being District Head of the Police Force and engaged in important law and order duties was to be given that much of a margin to allow him to explain the circumstances which were the cause or the reason for his omission to appear in the Court, 8. Similarly in so far as the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting the respondent under Section 350 Cr.RC. and imposing upon him the fine of Rs. 100 is concerned, a bare look at Section 350 Cr.RC. suggests that the summary trial of such a person can be resorted to only if the Court is satisfied, after affording an opportunity of showing cause to the offender that his absence from the Court was without just excuse and that he neglected or refused to attend without such a just excuse. As noticed above, the omission on the part of the respondent in attending the Court as a witness cannot be said to be without a just cause or a just excuse because the respondents few messages sent to the Court did inform the court that owing to his pre-occupation with the law and order duties during the course of elections, he could be excused and that the date could be fixed immediately after the elections were over. 9. 9. Whereas undoubtedly, it is the duty of every one concerned, including an officer of the Government howsoever high he many be, to effectively and positively respond to the summons and notices issued by the Courts of law and to act strictly in accordance with the directions and the commands contained in such summons and notices, the Courts also should, while initiating the extreme action of prosecution against such defaulters take into consideration the attending circumstances with a view to find out whether the omission to appear was justifiable or not, or whether it was intentional or not. Whenever a Court finds that the non-appearance was intentional, undoubtedly it should come down upon such offenders with a heavy hand, and the natural corollary of such an action with respect to such an intentional defaulter is to prosecute him either in terms of Section 350 Cr.RC. or under Section 174 IPC But, as noticed above, the omission to appear must be intentional and the intention of not appearing has to be deliberate, gathered from the contemporaneous record or such attendant circumstances as would help him in furnishing an indication of such deliberate intended omission. 10. An intentional, wilful and deliberate absence from appearance as a witness after being duly summoned to appear has to be severely dealt with, and with firm determination and a heavy hand, because if such detaulters and offenders are let off, or dealt with lightly, easily or leniently, the casually shall be the majesty of law and the administration of justice. 11. The wheel of administration of justice cannot be permitted to be brought to a grinding halt just because of the acts of omission or commission of a defaulter/offender. With a view to ensuring that the proceedings in the courts of law, whether in Civil Courts or in Criminal Courts are not obstructed, hampered, or delayed, legal provisions exist which enjoin upon everyone, whether a private individual or an official functionary (howsoever high he may be) to properly and effectively respond to summons or notices issued by the Courts of law with a purpose of securing their attendance in the Courts to give evidence. If the Courts start countenancing the lapses and omissions on the part of summoned witnesses, or if the Courts start condoning their acts of omission or commission in not appearing in the Courts as witnesses, despite being duly summoned, it would not only tell upon the Majesty of Justice and compromise the authority to law, it would also result in delay in the disposal of cases because if the witnesses do not turn up in the Courts, despite due service, adjournments have necessarily to be granted for future dates for recording the testimony of such witnesses. It is a common knowledge that trials, especially in Criminal Cases are inordiantely delayed, in some cases for months and years together because of non-availability of prosecution witnesses, especially the Investigating Officers and the Medical Expert witnesses for a variety of reasons. If unavoidable situation of non-availability of witnesses is coupled with the avoidable situation of non-appearance of such witnesses, who have been duly summoned to depose, this would not only bring a bad name to the Judiciary but also result in grave and harsh suffering to the parties to a suit or in a criminal trial. Apart from compromising with the Authority of Law and the Majesty of Justice, a Court cannot be permitted to countenance a situation, nor can it be permitted the happening of an event where a witness though summoned does not appear in the Court and yet no action is initiated against such a witness by the Court. 12. When we are all crying in this country against the menace of mounting arrears and inordinate delays occurring in the disposal of cases, especially the criminal cases and when we are all clamouring for evolving systems and mechanisms with a view to ensuring that the cases in the Courts are decided without any delay, the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" always stares at us. We cannot permit witnesses to indulge in the luxury of opting to remain absent from the Courts even after due service of summons/ notices upon them. Actually, we all are also aware that even the service of notices/summons upon witnesses is a tedious task, not easily accomplished and in a large number of cases, it takes months and years to effect service of summons/notices upon witnesses to appear in the Court. Actually, we all are also aware that even the service of notices/summons upon witnesses is a tedious task, not easily accomplished and in a large number of cases, it takes months and years to effect service of summons/notices upon witnesses to appear in the Court. This tedious task having been accomplished, Justice System cannot afford the luxury of the witnesses not reporting in the Court on the due date and time for giving evidence. This is more vitally important in so far as such witnesses are concerned who fall in the category of "official witnesses". Official witnesses are such persons, who holding official positions are required to tender evidence in the courts on account of their having been associated in their official capacity, in one form or the other with respect to the facts of the case. Investigating Officers, complainants, medical witnesses and such like officials fall in the category of official witnesses. It is upon these official witnesses that the onus and burden of proving the States case rests and it is invariably seen that because of non availability of the official witnesses, trials, especially the criminal trials, drag on for months and in some cases, even for years. 13. It is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that every authority, every functionary and every subordinate of the State is duty bound to aid and obey the orders of the Courts of law since the courts of law are the direct organs of the Sovereign and represent the Sovereigns authority in so far as the dispensation of justice is concerned. It was not for nothing that their Lordships of the Supreme Court had the following observations to make with respect to the sovereign nature of the functions being performed by the courts of law while dispensing justice and we quote: "As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State. They are holders of public offices in the same way as the members of the council of ministers and the members of the legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the three pillars of the State, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential functions of the State are entrusted to the three organs of the State and each one of them in turn represents the authority of the state. However, those who exercise the State power are the ministers, the legislatures and the judges, and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing their decisions. The council of ministers or the political executive is different from the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which carries out the decisions of the political executive. Similarly, the legislators are different from the legislative staff. So also the Judges from the judicial staff. The parity is between the political executive, the legislators and the Judges and not between the Judges and the administrative executive. In some democracies like the USA, members of some State judiciaries are elected as much as the members of the legislature and the heads of the State. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally." (Please see All India Judges Association v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2493 at page 2502). 14. In the aforesaid background, therefore, once having been duly summoned, witnesses, including official witnesses cannot be permitted to remain absent from appearing in the Courts after due service and to depose in cases. This is inalienable and integral part of the performance of their official duties. 15. Having made the aforesaid observations, this Court cannot also remain oblivious to some rare compelling and exceptional circumstances where a witness though summoned yet does not appear in the Court. At the risk of repetition and reiteration, as such situations would be rare, very-very rare and few and far between, only in such rare and exceptional circumstances where a witness though summoned is unable to leave his station or is unable to reach the Court, only in such rare and exceptional cases can such a witness be permitted the leave of absence from a Court. Actually whenever such witnesses, mostly official witnesses, who have been summoned and yet for exceptional and compelling reasons do not or cannot appear in the Court, it is expected that they take steps to obtain the leave of absence from the Court either before or at least on the date fixed for their appearance in the Court and for their deposition and by assigning sufficient reasons and cause in such prayer/request for leave of absence, and on this being done, the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion would consider such prayer/request on its merits and pass order permitting or refusing leave of absence. A witness, who though summoned, yet chooses not to appear in the Court and also does not take steps in ensuring that on the date fixed in the Court for his appearance, his prayer/ request for such leave of absence has not even reached the Court, does not deserve any leniency or accommodation from the Court and in all such cases it would become the duty of the courts to proceed against such witness for his omission to appear in the Court and to take or initiate action according to law, either under Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in terms of Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. (This direction shall not have any retrospective effect. However, from now onwards, it shall be fully effective, enforceable and binding upon all concerned). 16. Based on the material that was available before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, also looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these three revision petitions, I find that the absence of the respondent perhaps could not be termed as intentional, deliberate or wilful and that in the facts, as have been noticed and have been brought out, the respondent can be said to be having some compelling reasons in not having attended the Court despite the service of notice/summons upon him for appearing as a witness. This can be termed as a rare case where the respondent did seem to have some justifiable reason whereby he could be excused from appearing as a witness in the Court. This can be termed as a rare case where the respondent did seem to have some justifiable reason whereby he could be excused from appearing as a witness in the Court. It would have been desirable and prudent on the part of the respondent had he ensured, by taking all possible steps that his request for leave of absence should have reached the Court well in time. His not having done so has unnecessarily resulted in his being prosecuted which could have been avoided to his advantage. 17. On a totality of facts and circumstances, even though the action taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate may not be termed as wholly unjustified, but then the situation was such that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate perhaps could have ignored the matter considering the justifiability of the reasons for the absence of the respondent. 18. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in these three cases, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate perhaps can be said to have acted without jurisdiction in either convicting the respondent under Section 350 Cr.P.C. or in launching prosecution against him under Section 174 IPC in the aforesaid two cases. 19. In the result, therefore, I set aside the order dated 11.7.2003, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi convicting the respondent under Section 350 Cr.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. I also quash the proceedings launched by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, under Section 174 IPC in the aforesaid two cases. These proceedings shall accordingly stand quashed with all consequences. 20. The Registry is directed to send copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh and Registrar General of High Court of Himachal Pradesh with directions to them to circulate the same to all concerned functionaries working under them for their information as well as due compliance in letter and spirit. Three Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly.