Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 195 (RAJ)

Sumitra Devi v. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaipur

1992-02-19

M.R.CALLA

body1992
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed against the order dated 9th Oct., 1990, passed in Cr. Case No. 353/84 by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur. The petitioner in this case is facing trial under Sections 28, 29 and 36 (3) of the Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1961 read with Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Krishi Uaj Vipani Rules, 1963. It is alleged that the petitioner did not deposit the mandi charges for the period 1st December, 1982 to 22nd June, 1984 and the same is punishable under Sections 17 and 18 (2) of the Act. The personal attendance of the accused petitioner had been exempted by the Court on 6th October, 1987. However, Later on, she has been required to appear before the Court to hear the charges. The petitioner again moved an application that the charge may be permitted to be heard by her lawyer and the same shall be acceptable to her as if the charge was heard by herself. Thereafter on 9th October, 1990, her personal attendance was exempted for 9th October, 1990 only and the petitioner was to appear before the Court to hear charge. The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that none of the grounds raised by her in her application dated 8th October, 1990 filed on 9th October, 1990 has been considered by the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is a lady and there is no other lady in the house to look after the house and, looking to her sickness and the circumstances, she may be permitted to hear charge through her counsel in her absence. Shri Misr invokes Section 205/317, Cr.P.C. and has cited before me certain cases, including. 2. Shri Tyagi, though, has opposed the petition but failed to answer as to what prejudice will be caused to Krishi Upaj Mandi in case the charge is heard by the petitioner through her counsel in her absence. 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner be permitted to hear charge through her counsel in her absence. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar Lake may proceed accordingly in this case. 4. This petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******