Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 940 (ORI)

Ananda Chandra Naik v. State of Orissa

2017-08-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner Ananda Chandra Naik has filed this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 15.10.2004 passed in 2(c)C.C. Case No.03 of 2002 in rejecting the application under section 205 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for dispensing with his personal attendance. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Devashis Panda contended that the complaint case was registered on the basis of a P.R. submitted under sections 26 and 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter ‘1947 Act’) and in such type of case, since summary trial procedure is to be adopted, the personal attendance of the petitioner was not required and therefore, the petitioner filed application for dispensing with the personal attendance and it was rejected on the ground that summons was issued to the petitioner but the adult member of the family refused to receive the summons and it was affixed on the front door of the house of the petitioner and that the petitioner was declared as an absconder as he was avoiding to attend the Court. 4. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate supported the impugned order. 5. In case of K. Narayan Patra Vs. Gopinath Sahu reported in (1991) 4 Orissa Criminal Reports 486, it is held that the appearance is the rule in criminal cases of a serious nature, involving moral turpitude, and punishable with imprisonment for some length of time. 6. In case of T.G.N. Kumar -Vrs.-State of Kerala reported in (2011) 48 Orissa Criminal Reports 570, it is held that the Court while exercising discretion under section 205 of Cr.P.C. shall examine whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or whether the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence. 7. In case of Kamaljeet Singh Ahulwalia -Vrs.-State of Orissa reported in Vol. 85 (1998) Cuttack Law Times 372 after considering the scope and object of section 205 of Cr.P.C., it is held that a liberal construction of the provisions of law be made unless the converse is necessary in the interest of justice. 8. 7. In case of Kamaljeet Singh Ahulwalia -Vrs.-State of Orissa reported in Vol. 85 (1998) Cuttack Law Times 372 after considering the scope and object of section 205 of Cr.P.C., it is held that a liberal construction of the provisions of law be made unless the converse is necessary in the interest of justice. 8. The accusation against the petitioner is that he being the General Secretary of the Kirei Ashoka Synthetic Spinning Mills Workers’ Union gave speech to the workmen not to go for their duties thereby halting the entire production process which amounts to sudden strike by the Union and constitutes an illegal strike. Section 26 of the 1947 Act deals with penalty for illegal strikes and lock-outs. In the context of the accusation, even if it prima facie attracts sub-section (1) of section 26, the punishment prescribed extends to one month or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees, or with both. Section 27 of the said Act which deals with penalty for instigation etc. prescribes punishment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. In view of the punishment prescribed, keeping in view section 260 of Cr.P.C., the case can be tried in a summary way. In view of section 262 of Cr.P.C., in summary trials, the procedure specified in the Code for the trial of summons-case shall be followed. In summons and summary trial cases, in trivial and technical cases, Court should not ordinarily insist for making the attendance of an accused just for the sake of seeing him in the Court but is required to exercise its discretion liberally to exempt the accused from personal appearance unless it is an absolute necessity. An accused can be permitted to appear through his pleader and the Court may even record the plea under section 251 of Cr.P.C. through his counsel. If the progress of the trial in such cases can be achieved even in the absence of the accused, the Court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the Court in that particular case. 9. If the progress of the trial in such cases can be achieved even in the absence of the accused, the Court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the Court in that particular case. 9. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the nature of accusation against the petitioner, there was no justification on the part of the learned S.D.J.M., Sundargarh not to allow the petition filed by the petitioner under section 205 Cr.P.C. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the 205 Cr.P.C. petition are not just and proper. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.10.2004 is set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to be represented by his advocate during the proceeding subject to filing of undertaking by the petitioner that he will appear before the Court at any stage of the proceeding as and when his appearance would be necessary and he shall have no objection in taking evidence by the Court in presence of his counsel who shall remain present throughout the hearing of the proceeding and that he will not raise the question of prejudice in future and that he will not dispute his identity as accused in the case. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC application is disposed of.