Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 317 of the criminal procedure code in Mohammed Faruk vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2025Matching Fragments
1.3. When the case was listed for trial on 30.01.2025, the appellant had filed a petition under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025, to condone his absence on the ground of ill-health.
1.4. The Special Court had, in its order dated 30.01.2025, recorded that about 65 witnesses were examined during the course of trial, which commenced on 01.12.2021 and except A11, A1 to A13 were present, apart from three witnesses, who could not be examined on that day due to the absence of A11. It was further recorded therein that the appellant had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm ) filed similar petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. on ten earlier occasions between 06.08.2024 and 28.11.2024, owing to which the trial proceedings were delayed and accordingly dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025. Consequently, a Non-bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
3. In the past one month, we are confronted with several orders of this Special Court, rejecting petitions filed by the accused under Section 317 Cr.P.C. In all these petitions, the only ground of rejection expressed by the Special Court is that the accused has already filed similar petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which came to be allowed by the Court and the one, which is put under challenge before us, is a dilatory tactic adopted by the concerned accused.
13. We have taken into account the conduct of the appellant on the given day and thereafter, when the case in Spl.S.C.No.20 of 2022 was posted for hearing on 30.01.2025. It is stated before us that the appellant was suffering from Diarrhoea while travelling from his native place to Chennai for attending the hearing and realising that he may not reach the Special Court at 10.30 A.M. on 30.01.2025, he had instructed his Advocate for filing a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C. However, when this petition in Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2025 was filed, the Special Court had dismissed the petition and issued a NBW against the appellant and adjourned the matter to 31.01.2025. The appellant had reached the Special Court at 11.00 A.M. and on realising the rejection of his Section 317 Cr.P.C. petition, he had presented himself before the Court and filed an advance hearing petition in Crl.M.P.No.74 of 2025, along with a surrender petition and a warrant recall petition in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2025 respectively, on the very same day. However, the Special Court had rejected the petition on 30.01.2025, for recall of NBW and remanded the appellant to judicial custody, by citing the very same reasons assigned in the rejection order passed in the petition filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., recording that the appellant was indulging in dilatory tactics.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:00 pm )
14. As recorded earlier, we are being continuously confronted with several orders of the Special Court rejecting petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. in a routine manner. Had the Special Court reminded itself of the broad underlying principles in dealing with a petition of this nature, as highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions recorded by us above, the travesty could have been avoided. Thus, the disregard to these well settled principles of law and rejecting the petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and 70(2) Cr.P.C. is an arbitrary exercise of its powers.