Delhi District Court
Virender Uppal vs State on 11 February, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 02/2013
Virender Uppal,
S/o Late Shri Durga Dass Uppal,
R/o 5/77, West Punjabi Bagh,
Delhi. ...Petitioner/
Revisionist
Versus
State
Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi ...Respondent
Date of Institution:05.01.2013
Date of conclusion of Arguments:08.02.2013
Date of pronouncement of Judgment:11.02.2013
Appearances: Mr. S.P. Aggarwal, Counsel for revisionist.
Ms. Purnima Gupta, APP for respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
1. Revisionist is aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the Court of Mr. Vipin Kharb, Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide which Ld. MM directed the accused to appear in person. For the sake of convenience, revisionist is hereinafter referred to as accused also.
Virender Uppal Vs. State (Crl. Rev. No.02/2013) page 1 of 4 2
2. Record of the case shows that initially, there were three accused, namely, Virender Uppal, Pradeep Kumar and Ram Niwas. Pradeep Kumar expired and proceeding have abated against him. Accused Ram Niwas has still not been served.
3. The first contention of the counsel for accused is that his client was granted exemption u/s 205 Cr.PC and that order cannot be revoked by the Magistrate. The second contention is that the impugned order has been passed without hearing him. Third and fourth contentions are that accused is doing business in Bhopal and he will suffer a lot of difficulty in attending the Court proceedings and that his presence is not required to do any effective proceedings.
4. Trial Court record shows that the accused appeared in the Court on 20.10.2010 and on the same day, he was granted bail. On the adjourned date also i.e. on 21.04.011, he was present and case was adjourned to 26.08.2011. On that day, he moved exemption application and was allowed till further orders. Perusal of the application shows that it was filed u/s 205 r.w.s. 317 Cr.PC. Apparently, Section 205 Cr.PC is meant for exemption for the first date. Accused was present on the first and subsequent date. The application was moved u/s 205 r.w.s. 317 Cr.PC. So, impugned order is not u/s 205 Cr.PC but u/s 317 Cr.PC. Whether the order is u/s 205 or 317 Cr.PC, sub section(2) of both sections empowers Virender Uppal Vs. State (Crl. Rev. No.02/2013) page 2 of 4 3 the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused, if necessary. So, contention of the counsel for accused that order once passed cannot be revoked, is not sustainable. Argument that the impugned order was passed on the back of his client, is also baseless because his counsel was very much present on that day. In Bhaskar Industries Limited Vs. Bhiwani Denim Apparels Limited & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 401, it was held that exemption from personal appearance should be granted to the accused if he resides or does business or works for gain at a distant place which may create undue hardship to him. In the case in hand also, the accused is doing business at Bhopal. If he is directed to appear on each and every date, it will create unnecessary hardship to him. So, the impugned order is set aside with the following conditions: i. The exemption order shall remain in force till the arrival of stage of argument on charge;
ii. The accused may be directed by the trial Court to appear in person in order to assist the Court in summoning the other accused i.e. in order to furnish address etc. of second accused;
iii. His counsel shall appear in the trial Court on each and every date and well at time; and iv. He shall furnish his address, mobile and landline number. If there is any change in address or Virender Uppal Vs. State (Crl. Rev. No.02/2013) page 3 of 4 4 telephone number, the Court shall be intimated immediately.
4. TCR be sent back with copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court On this 11th day of February, 2013.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
Outer Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
Virender Uppal Vs. State
(Crl. Rev. No.02/2013) page 4 of 4