Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

No doubt, appearance before the Court on every date of adjournment may cause inconvenience to the petitioner. But the petitioner can file an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with his appearance on the date of adjournment, instead of filing such application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. to condone the absence of the petitioner on the particular date of adjournment, he filed petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to avoid his appearance before the Court authorizing his Counsel Sri Bharadwaj Reddy to appear on all date of adjournment and the petitioner is ready to file undertaking that he will not set up any defence that the evidence was not recorded in his presence and that he will appear before the trial Court as and when directed, but the attributions against the petitioner are serious in nature i.e. bribing accused No.1 and his father allegedly for transferring mining licence by corrupt practices and the total amount allegedly bribed is Rs.20 crores, later Rs.70 crores etc., and the total amount is about Rs.139 crores so as to establish the cement factory at Andhra Pradesh by backdoor methods. When the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are serious in nature causing dent to the economy of the State itself, the trial Court MSM,J Crl.P_3880_2016 normally would not exercise power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner on all dates of adjournments.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Court can dispense with the appearance during trial or enquiry while permitting the accused to be represented by his authorized advocate by exercising power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., and strange argument is advanced in addition to the above argument that instead of filing petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, quoting wrong provision of law is not a ground to dismiss the petition, if the petitioner is entitled to claim relief in a petition filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. But this contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is lot of distinction between Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., the absence of the petitioner can be condoned either during trial or enquiry, but power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised only to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner during trial/enquiry by the Judge/Magistrate if he is represented by Counsel duly authorized by the petitioner. In a petition filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. no such advocate need to represent the accused. The power conferred on the Court under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of special vakalat to represent the petitioner/accused and the Counsel can answer to the questions put to him including his examination, so also examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., whereas under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. no such permission can be granted except to condone the absence on particular date, during MSM,J Crl.P_3880_2016 trial or enquiry. Therefore, the petition filed before the trial Court virtually a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to represent the petitioner by Special Vakalat holder Bharadwaj Reddy on all dates of adjournments during trial or enquiry. Therefore, the argument advanced by Senior Counsel is without any force. On that ground, the petition cannot be allowed treating the same as petition filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C.

Learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to a judgment of High Court of New Delhi and this Court in support of his contentions. In "Shri Chandramauli Prasad v. State of Delhi" (unreported judgment in Crl.M.C.No.1303 of 2008 dated 03.07.2008) the High Court of Delhi discussed the philosophy under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. and Section 317 of Cr.P.C. In the said judgment, the High Court of Delhi referred judgments in "Basil Ranger Lawrance v. Emperor3" and also another judgment in "Sultan Singh Jain v. The State4" with reference to pre-amended Cr.P.C. i.e. Section 540A of Cr.P.C. equivalent to Section 205 of Cr.P.C. and concluded that the Court can exercise such power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with the appearance of the accused on every date of adjournment and the power is purely discretionary in nature. Even in "Basil Ranger Lawrance v. Emperor" (referred supra) the Court observed that "it is an essential principle of our criminal law that the trial of an indictable offence has to be conducted in the presence of the accused; and for this purpose trial means the whole of the proceedings, including sentence, There is authority for saying that in cases of AIR (20) 1933 PC 218 AIR 1951 ALL 864 (FB) MSM,J Crl.P_3880_2016 misdemeanour there may be special circumstances which permit a trial in the absence of the accused, but on trials for felony the rule is inviolable unless possibly the violent conduct of the accused himself renders it lawful to continue in his absence." Similarly in "Sultan Singh Jain v. The State" (referred supra), the Court made the following observation:

The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, if the Court insists the appearance of the petitioner on all dates of adjournment, the petitioner will be put to serious harassment and embarrassment and it effects his business activities, being the director of various companies. No doubt, it would restrict the petitioner's movements on Friday of every week only when cases are taken up by the Court below and on rest of the days in the week, the petitioner can undertake his business AIR 1969 Mysore 95 MSM,J Crl.P_3880_2016 activities. Insistence of petitioner's appearance before the Court below would not infringe personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, since such liberty can be deprived by law. Appearance of the accused in criminal cases on the dates of adjournment is mandated by the procedure, unless his appearance is exempted by the Court by exercising power under Section 205 Cr.P.C or dispense with the petitioner's appearance on the dates of adjournment by exercising power under Section 317 Cr.P.C. When the law mandates appearance of the accused in cases like grave economic offences, it would not amount to infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.