Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 575 (JHR)

Ram Dahin Sao v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-02

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in C.G. Case No. 3 of 2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., for permitting him to appear through his advocate, has been rejected by the Court below. One another application under section 305 of the Cr.P.C. had also been filed, which had been allowed by the Court below by the same order. The petitioner has challenged only the order passed upon the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The impugned order shows that the petitioner is facing trial in the said case, being the Factory Manager of Aditya Birla Group, against which the complaint petition has been filed for various offences under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner appeared in the Court below on summons and stated that he was holding the post of Assistant Vice President in the Company, having turn over of more than 800 crores, and he was also suffering from heart ailments, and accordingly, it was very difficult for him to attend the Court on each and every date, in view of his official engagements and heart ailments. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., but the said application has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order, stating that these are not the reasonable and just cause for allowing the petition filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is submitted that taking into consideration the official responsibilities of the petitioner, as also his ailments, the application filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. It is submitted that taking into consideration the official responsibilities of the petitioner, as also his ailments, the application filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, and taking into consideration the official engagement of the petitioner and the medical ground, for which the documents have been brought on record by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that a lenient view aught to have been taken by the Court below and the application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been allowed by the Court below. Even otherwise, the Courts while dealing with the applications under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., should adopt a lenient approach, in as much as, the presence of the accused can be ensured by the Court below as and when necessary, even if the application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.9.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in C.G. Case No. 3 of 2013, so far as it relates to the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., is hereby, set aside, and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law and in view of observations made above. 8. This revision application is, accordingly, allowed.