Judgment (1) Since both the revisions are filed by common petitioner and almost common facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. (2) Crl.R.C.No.703 of 2010 arises out of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2010 in C.C.No.81 of 2008 dated 09.03.2010 and Crl.R.C.No.704 of 2010 arises out of the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.405 of 2010 in C.C.No.335 of 2007 dated 09.03.2010 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Uravakonda. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was taking treatment for acute severe low back pain from doctor G. Manjunath Reddy, Prime Hospitals, Hyderabad, from 15.01.2010 to 15.03.2010. The said doctor issued a medical certificate to that effect on 01.02.2010 and also advised complete bed rest to the petitioner for two months from 15.01.2010 to 15.03.2010. While so, it appears that the petitioner is an accused in three cases, i.e., C.C.No.81 of 2007, C.C.No.335 of 2007 and S.T.C.No.66 of 2009. Those cases were posted for trial on 18.02.2010. In C.C.No.81 of 2007 and S.T.C.66 of 2009, it appears that the petitioner has filed petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal appearance before the Court. Since L.Ws.1 to 3 were present and L.W.1 is the sitting M.L.A. and the case was posted for trial, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Uravakonda, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner and issued N.B.W. against him in C.C.No.81 of 2007. As far as C.C.No.335 of 2007 is concerned, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, NBW was issued against the petitioner. Then petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2010 in C.C.No.81 of 2007 and Crl.M.P.No.405 of 2010 in C.C.No.335 of 2007 praying to recall NBWs issued against him on 18.02.2010. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Uravakonda, under impugned orders dated 09.03.2010 dismissed those two applications. Aggrieved by the same, these two revisions have been filed. (4) The impugned orders reveal that the lower court was impressed by the fact that L.W.1 is a member of Legislative Assembly and that though the Assembly Sessions were going on, he attended the court and that the Additional Public Prosecutor represented that the presence of the accused was necessary for the purpose of identification and in the above circumstances, NBW was issued against the petitioner. It is also observed that the medical certificate issued to the petitioner goes to show that he was treated as an outpatient and no date is mentioned on the said certificate. It is also observed that the petitioner did not turn up to attend the court on previous dates of adjournments, i.e., 04.02.2010 and 21.02.2010. Having discussed the above facts, the lower court dismissed the petitions. (5) It is known factor that in some cases, unscrupulous accused make themselves absent from the court with a view to drag on the proceedings and particularly to see that the trial schedule is cancelled. In certain cases when the accused are not in a position to win over the witnesses and not able to influence the witnesses, they try to seek adjournment on one ground or the other. Of course, there may be genuine cause for the absence of the accused. Whether the ground shown by the petitioner is genuine or not some times may become a difficult issue to take a just decision. Whatever it may be, where in a case an accused is really not in a position to attend the court, then his counsel must assist the court and see that the trial proceedings are not cancelled and the witnesses are examined in the court. Of course, where the presence of the accused is necessary for the purpose of identification or where the advocate feels that he may require the assistance of the accused in cross-examining the witnesses, in such circumstances, the expenses of the witnesses must be paid by the accused to enable them to appear before the court on the next date of hearing, unless it is shown that the accused cannot afford to pay such expenses. The court must ascertain and visualize the intention of the accused and if it is for the purpose of canceling the trial schedule, the court will be justified in insisting his presence and issuing NBW for his absence and in taking coercive steps. If the accused cooperate with the court in proceeding with the trial, for genuine reasons his absence can be condoned. Anyhow, it is for the trial Court to take a reasonable view. However, having regard to the facts of this case, it appears that there is nothing on record to dispute the genuineness of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. Anyhow, it is for the trial Court to take a reasonable view. However, having regard to the facts of this case, it appears that there is nothing on record to dispute the genuineness of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner. As far as the certificate filed along with these petitions is concerned, the medical certificate bears the date of 01.02.2010. (6) Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to order as follows: Subject to the condition that the petitioner shall regularly appear before the court and face the trial and on any day for any reason, if he is not able to attend the court, he shall not dispute his identity and file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and proceed with the trial, the NBWs issued against the petitioner shall be recalled on condition of petitioner furnishing the bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Uravakonda. It is made clear that if the petitioner is absent and if no petition is filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., the lower Court is at liberty to issue NBW against the petitioner and take steps as pr law. (7) Subject to the above observations, both the revisions stand allowed and the impugned orders stand set aside.