Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 447 (RAJ)

Ajay Singh @ Suni Deol v. State of Rajasthan

2012-02-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur City in Criminal Case No. 1285/1997. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections 141, 145, 146 and 147 of the Railway Act in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur. The petitioner is resident of Mumbai. He moved an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for permanent exemption from appearance and allowing his appearance through his pleader which was rejected by the learned Trial Court by impugned order dated 17.11.2009. Aggrieved by the same, this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has appeared before the Trial Court as per direction of this Court and submitted an application before the court concerned under Section 205 Cr.P.C. but the same was dismissed on 17.11.2009. He has further contended that as per joint consideration of Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C., the Court has been empowered to dispense with personal attendance of the accused. At this stage, learned counsel has. further contended that this court is fully empowered under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with personal attendance of the accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and submitted that there was no sufficient ground in the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record including the impugned order dated 17.11.2009. Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. are reproduced as under : "205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused : (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided. 317. (2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided. 317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases: (1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct and the personal attendance of such accused. (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn Such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately. Further it will be appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the order of the trial Court dated 17.11.2009 which is reproduced as under : " tgkWa rd eqfYte vt; flag mQZ lUuh nsvksy ds fnukad 21-7-2009 ds/kkjk 205 na0iz0la0 ds izkFkZuk i= dk lEcU/k gS bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk i= esa eq[; :i ls ;g rdZ fn;k gS fd izkFkhZ ,d vfHkusrk gS rFkk og tc Hkh fdlh Lfkku vFkok U;k;ky; esa vkrk tkrk gS rks ogka ij dkQh HkhM gks tkrh gS ftl dkj.k ls turk o iz'kklu dks dkQh fnDdr vkrh gS og eqEcbZ esa fuokl djrk gS tks t;iqj ls yxHkx ,d gtkj fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds fo:) lHkh vkjksi lk/kkj.k izzd'fr ds gS rFkk lEeu V~k;y gS eqfYte dh f'kuk[r ckcr Hkh dksbZ fookn ugha gS rFkk U;k;ky; tc Hkh vkns'k djsxk og gkftj gks tk;sxkA vr% eqfYte dk izkFkZuk i=/kkjk 205 na0iz0la0 Lohdkj dj tfj;s vf/koDrk mldh mifLFkr ntZ djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSaA ftlds leFkZu esa (1) RLW 2008 (4) 3434 (SC) Keya Mukharji Vs. Megma Filling Ltd.] (2) RLW 1992 (1) Raj. Megma Filling Ltd.] (2) RLW 1992 (1) Raj. 643 MM Lal & Ors. Vs. Water (Prevention of Pollution) Board (150), (3) RLW 1996 (3) Raj. 161 Jai Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (4) RCC 1980 (5) Mahesh & Laxmi Narauan Vs. State of Rajasthan ftudk llEeku voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdy fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd eqfYteku dfj'ek diwj o lUuh nsvksy dh vksj ls fnukad 13-2-1998 dks blh vk'k; dk/kkjk 205 na0izala0 dk izkFkZuk fQYe txr ds vfHkusrk o vfHkus=h gS rFkk mUgsa 'kqfVax ds fy, ckgj tkuk iM+rk gS rFkk izkFkhZx.k dh mifLFkfr dks tfj;s vf/koDrk fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k Fkk ftldk fuLrkj.k blh U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 20-2-1998 dks eq[; :i ls bl vkns'k ds lkFk fd;k x;k fd eqfYtek dfj'ek dwij vkjksi lquk, tkus ds le; eqfYte ds c;ku ds le; o fu.kZ; ds le; o blds vykok ;fn U;k;ky; vko';d le>s rks mUgsa mifLFkr gksus ds fy, vkns'k ns rFkk eqfYte lUuh nsvksy dk gkftjh ekQh dk/kkjk 205 na0iz0la0 dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA ftlds fo:) izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk dksbZ vihy fjohtu fdlh mPp U;k;ky; esa ugha dh gSA ftl dkj.k ls ;g vfUre vkns'k gks pqdk gS vkSj bl U;k;ky; dks vius vkns'k dks fjO;q djus dk {ks=kkf/kdkj ugha gSaA ,sls esa rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;qDr lUuh nsvksy dk/kkjk 205 na0iz0la0 dk izkFkZuk i= {ks=kf/kdkj ds vkns'k ds vHkko esa [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA " 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and observation made by the trial court as well as a bare perusal of Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. and the reasons which have been shown by the petitioner does not call for any interference as no one is above the law, I do not think it proper to accept this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 does call for any interference and the same is hereby confirmed.Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******