Intentional non-attendance under Section 174 IPC requires deliberate disobedience of a lawful summons; refusal to summon was upheld.

Liability under Section 174 IPC arises only when a person, being legally bound to attend, intentionally omits to attend in obedience to a lawful summons or order. On the material before the Court, the respondent had communicated reasons for absence, and the surrounding circumstances, including distance and stated difficulties, did not support an inference of deliberate non-attendance or mens rea. The Magistrate's view that the conduct was not intentional was found to be free from perversity, so refusal to summon the respondent for the alleged offence was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-appearance in response to summons issued during central excise inquiry amounted to an offence under Section 174 IPC and justified summoning of the respondent.

Analysis: Liability under Section 174 IPC arises only where a person, being legally bound to attend, intentionally omits to attend in obedience to a lawful summons or order. The material on record showed that the respondent had given reasons for absence and had communicated those reasons to the petitioner. The Court found no basis to infer intentional non-attendance or perversity in the Magistrate's view that the conduct was not deliberate. The existence of distance and stated difficulties was treated as relevant to the absence of mens rea for the alleged offence.

Conclusion: The refusal to summon the respondent for an offence under Section 174 IPC was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Magistrate's order failed because the ingredients of the alleged offence were not made out on the material placed before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 174 IPC, intentional omission to attend in obedience to a lawful summons is essential; where absence is not shown to be deliberate, criminal process cannot be invoked.

---