Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The petitioners herein are charged for offences under Sections 120B, 148, 149, 333, 307 IPC r/w Sections 3(2)(b), 3(5) of POTA Act.

5. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, petitioners/accuseds were appearing before the Trial Court during all https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis hearings. However, they could not able to appear for the trial on 13.11.2024 and 16.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. The petition was dismissed and Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued. There is no reason to issue NBW, since the petitioners appeared before the Trial Court during all hearings either in person or through their counsels by filing a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition is filed to recall the NBW issued against the petitioners on 13.11.2024 and 16.11.2024 in Spl.C.C.No.3 of 2022.

15. The very statistics provided by the respondents would be sufficient to form an opinion that attempt is made to obstruct the free flow of trial proceedings. Despite the fact that opportunities were granted and many number of Section 317 Cr.P.C petitions filed by the accused persons were allowed by the Trial Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16. The free and fair trial is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of Indian Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should seem to have been done. Therefore, co-operation of the prosecution and the accused persons are to be ensured under the provisions of law. The Trial Court are not expected to grant adjournments in a routine manner. Once trial commenced, the adjournments ought to be granted only on genuine grounds and by recording reasons. Equally the accuseds are expected to co-operate for completion of trial in all respects and they have to file Section 317 Cr.P.C petition only on genuine grounds and it cannot be a routine affair on the part of the accused persons by filing 317 Cr.P.C petitions.

17. Section 317 Cr.P.C stipulates provisions for enquiry and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. Subsection (1) to Section 317 Cr.P.C contemplates that, At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.

18. Therefore, routine filing of Section 317 Cr.P.C petition need not be considered by the Trial Court in all circumstances. The practice of filing such petitions, in the absence of any valid reason needs no merit consideration. The provisions are provided to dispense with the presence of the accused only on certain exceptional circumstances and the Courts have to consider by recording reasons. Reasons being live link for Section 317 Cr.P.C, it cannot be a mechanical affair.