9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the S.D.J.M. in G.R. Case No. 867 of 1997 under Sections 420/120B, I.P.C., rejection of petitions under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, complainant's locus standi, discretionary power of the court in granting exemption from personal appearance, interpretation of Section 205 of the Code. Analysis: The petitioners filed two petitions under Section 482 of the Code challenging the legality of the order passed by the S.D.J.M. in G.R. Case No. 867 of 1997. The case involved allegations of cheating in a mining dealing, leading to cognizance of offences under Sections 420/120B, I.P.C. against the petitioners. The petitioners sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code, citing old age, illness, and distant residence as grounds. However, the S.D.J.M. rejected their petitions, leading to the petitioners challenging the order in the High Court. The petitioners argued that the S.D.J.M. did not judiciously consider their request for exemption from personal appearance and rejected it on flimsy grounds. They also raised the issue of complainant's locus standi based on previous judgments. On the other hand, the complainant and the Addl. Standing Counsel supported the S.D.J.M.'s decision, emphasizing the importance of the accused's presence in a criminal trial. The High Court examined various precedents and principles related to Section 205 of the Code, highlighting that personal appearance of the accused is the norm, and exemption is an exception to be granted judiciously based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of the law unless contrary to the interest of justice. The Court found that the S.D.J.M.'s decision to reject the petitions for exemption was reasonable, considering the nature of the case and the petitioners' activities in different offices. The Court also noted that the petitioners could seek exemption from personal appearance at a later stage under Section 317 of the Code. The contention that once petitions under Section 317 were filed, Section 205 could not be invoked was deemed irrelevant in this case as the former petitions were rejected as premature. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the criminal misc. cases, upholding the S.D.J.M.'s order. However, it directed the petitioners to surrender in the lower court within six weeks and apply for bail, ensuring that the non-bailable warrant of arrests would remain stayed during this period.
|
