Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 828 (JHR)

Shivdutt Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2011-09-02

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2011
ORDER By the Court. - This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.4.2011 passed by CJM. Deoghar in T.R. No. 484 of 2010 whereby he rejected the application of petitioner filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. 2. It appears that on the basis of a complaint. filed by O.P. No. 2 learned CJM. Deoghar vide order dated 11.11.2010 prima facie come to the conclusion that offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC are made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, he took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summon for appearance of petitioner. 3. It then appears that instead of appearing in the Court of learned CJM. Deoghar. petitioner filed an application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. stating therein that he is very busy person and always remain out of Deoghar in connection with political and business work, hence it is not possible for him to remain personally present in the Court below. Accordingly, it is prayed that his attendance be dispensed with and he may be allowed to appear through his pleader. Aforesaid application rejected by learned CJM. Deoghar on 26.4.2011. against that the present application filed. 4. Sri P.P.N. Roy, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, Submits that petitioner is Director of Ma Lalita Hospital and Research Center besides Secretary of Paritran Medical College and Hospital. Dardmara, Deoghar. It is further submitted that petitioner is also an active member of Jharkhand Vikash Morcha and being its member contested election from Madhupur Assembly Constituency. It is then stated that petitioner always remain out of Deoghar in connection with political and business work of hospital and medical college. It is submitted that Hon'ble Patna High Court in Nadebasi Maji v. State of Bihar and. another, reported in 1999 (1) East Cr C 696 (Pat) : 1998 (2) PLJR 270 has held that Court must see whether due to non-attendance of accused any prejudice would have been caused to the complainant or not. The Court also required to see whether personal attendance of the accused in the Court is likely to affect his business or not. The Court also required to see whether personal attendance of the accused in the Court is likely to affect his business or not. Thus, if no prejudice caused to the prosecution, the Court ought to have allowed the application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., It is submitted that in the instant case, the learned Court below had not considered aforesaid aspect of the case and dismissed the application merely on the ground that the offence alleged is of serious nature. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Sri Rajiv Sharma, senior advocate, appearing for the O.P. No. 2. submits that it has been held by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Ram Harsh Das v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1998 0) East Cr C 932 (Pat) : 19980) PLJR 502 and also by a Bench of this Court in P.B. Mishra v. State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 598 that the personal attendance of an accused can be dispensed with under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. where the offences alleged are minor and trivial in nature. It is submitted that an accused can not claim exemption from personal attendance if he is charged for committing serious offences punishable with long imprisonment. It is submitted that in the instant case petitioner arraigned under Section 420 of the IPC punishable with 7 years imprisonment. Accordingly it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, which require interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the submission. I have gone through the record of the case. In the present case, the petitioner had only stated that he always remain out of Deoghar in connection with political and business work of hospital and medical college. In the application of petitioner nature of business conducted by the hospital or, medical college had not been stated. Petitioner also not disclosed why he always remain out• of Deoghar. Only a vague statement given in this regard. It further appears that petitioner is a local worker of Jharkhand Vikash Morcha. It is not the case of petitioner that he is a member of Central Committee of aforesaid political party and he always remain out of Deoghar for attending meeting of the Central Committee. Only a vague statement given in this regard. It further appears that petitioner is a local worker of Jharkhand Vikash Morcha. It is not the case of petitioner that he is a member of Central Committee of aforesaid political party and he always remain out of Deoghar for attending meeting of the Central Committee. Under the said circumstance, the grounds for seeking exemption from attending the Court do not exist and only a lame excuse given in this regard. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1999(2) PWR 270 has no application in the facts of this case, because accused of that case was a Bank Manager and transferred from Chaibasa, Jharkhand to Hugli in the State of West Bengal. Thus, taking into aforesaid facts and circumstance, specially inconveniences caused to the proper functioning of the bank, said accused was exempted from personal attendance. In the instant case, as noticed above, petitioner has not stated as to how inconvenience will be caused to the proper functioning of Medical College and Hospital if exemption from personal attendance will not be granted to the petitioner. 7. It appears that the learned Court below rejected the application of petitioner on the ground that the offence alleged against the petitioner is of serious nature. It appears from the record that cognizance was taken against petitioner under Section 420 of the I.P.C., punishable with imprisonment of seven years. It has been held by Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna Hgh Court in 1998 (1) PWR 502 that while disposing of an application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., it is imperative for the Court to consider the nature of allegations and if the offences alleged against the petitioner is of serious nature, punishable with long imprisonment, then exemption should not be granted. A bench of this Court in 2003 (2) JLJR 598 had taken similar view. As noticed above, in the instant case learned CJM took cognizance under Section, A20 of the IPC in which maximum punishment is of seven years imprisonment. Thus the offence is punishable with longer imprisonment. 8. Under the said circumstance, I find that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is in consonance with aforesaid two decisions. Thus, I find no illegality and/or irregularities in the said impugned order. 9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Application dismissed.