Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In Aljaz v. Desouza AIR 1956 Bhopal 11 : 1956 Cri LJ 373 a woman sought exemption from personal attendance in a criminal case. There, the; Judicial Commissioner considered the scope of Sections 205 and 540-A and directed that the petitioner before him, being a purdanashin lady subject to special local and community customs, was entitled to exemption under the relevant sections of the Code. While discussions the right of purdanashin ladies, the learned Judicial Commissioner considered the circumstances under which a Court can compel the attendance of women accused. According to him, where the witnesses did not know the accused and where identification of the accused was necessary the accused can be compelled to attend Court. Even there, it was observed that the Magistrates should satisfy themselves of the need for their appearance before ordering personal attendance.

Criminal Courts should, as a rule. In cases where there are more accused than one. permit any one of them to be authorized by any other to appear, plead or act for such other in any criminal proceeding; but the authority shall be In writing and shall contain the signature or the thumb impression of the party giving it, and shall be filed in Court.

This rule was freely used to help persons who had to attend to their daily work by granting exemption from personal attendance and asking one of the accused to be present in Court. Unfortunately, a similar rule is not seen in the Criminal Rules of Practice applicable to the Kerala State.

19. On a consideration of all the aspects of the case I am of the view that in cases where the Court finds 'that the appearance of the accused is not necessary for a disposal of 'the case and where an Advocate undertakes on behalf of the accused to be present in Court, the Courts should be liberal in exempting the accused from personal attendance. It is useful to remember that an Advocate before Court is a responsible officer and when he undertakes on behalf of an accused to be present in Court it has to be given due weight Courts should be generous in extending the benefits of Sections 205. 353 and 540. A to the accused. In cases which are grievous in nature involving moral turpitude, personal attendance is the rule. But in cases which are technical in nature, which do not involve moral turpitude and where the sentence is only fine, exemption should be the rule. The Courts should insist upon the appearance of the accused only when it is in his interest to appear or when the Court feels 'that his presence necessary for effective disposal of the case. When the accused are women labourers, wage. earners and other busy men. Courts should as a rule grant exemption from personal attendance. Courts should see that undue harassment is not caused to the accused appearing before them. I wish to make it clear that the above observations are subject to the fact that In special cases where the Courts feel Presence of the accused necessary it should be insisted upon.

25. It is therefore clear with reference to the authorities cited by me above that this Court can in revision exempt the personal attendance of the accused in cases pending before the lower Court or direct the lower Court to grant exemption from personal attendance of the accused before them, where such Courts have refused to do so. I think in these cases the better procedure to be adopted is to direct the lower Court to exempt the personal appearance of the accused in the cases from which these revision petitions have arisen.