Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.205 – Appellant is accused no.3 in the case pertaining to the charge-sheet bearing C.C. No. 12 of 2013 pending before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad – Granted bail – However, pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant is required to attend the Trial Court on every Friday – Appellant made application before the Trial Court u/s.205 for dispensing with his personal appearance/attendance –Dismissed – Confirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Appellant, a permanent resident of Delhi, is the Director on the Boards of several companies and has been appearing before the Trial Court on each and every Friday since 2013 – Distance between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1500 kms – Nothing is on record that at any point of time he has tried to delay the trial – In view of principles for grant of exemption as observed by Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Case, the appellant can be granted the exemption on certain conditions and on filing an undertaking, by which the interest of justice can be protected and grant of exemption may not ultimately affect the conclusion of the trial at the earliest – Further, in case of other two co-accused in cases arising of the same FIR, the applications for exemption on the very same grounds were allowed, one by the High Court and another by the Trial Court – Judgment passed by the High Court as well as the Trial Court rejecting the appellant’s application u/s.205 are quashed and set aside – Thus, application of the appellant for dispensing with his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates of adjournments and permitting his counsel to appear on his behalf is allowed, conditionally – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420,
409 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.9, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d).
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellant is required to appear before the Trial Court on every Friday and the appellant as such is appearing before the Trial Court on each and every Friday since 2013. Nothing is on record that at any point of time the appellant has tried to delay the trial. The appellant is represented through his counsel. The appellant is a permanent resident of Delhi. He is the Director on the Boards of several companies. The distance between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1500 kms. However, the principles for grant of exemption as observed by this Court in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. can be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand also and the appellant can be granted the exemption on certain conditions and on filing an undertaking by the appellant, by which the interest of justice can be protected and grant of exemption may not ultimately affect the conclusion of the trial at the earliest. Nothing is on record that, at any point of time, any effort has been made by the appellant to stall/delay the trial. In case of other two co-accused in cases arising of the same fir, the applications for exemption on the very same grounds have been allowed – one by the high court and another by the trial court. [Para 6][140-D-E; 142F-H; 143-A]
1.2 The impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court rejecting the application submitted by the appellant under Section 205 Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the application submitted by the appellant to dispense with his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates of adjournments and permitting his counsel to appear on his behalf is allowed on the following conditions: (1) That the appellant shall give an undertaking to the Trial Court that he would not dispute his identity in the case and that the advocate who is permitted to represent the appellant, would appear before the Trial Court on his behalf on each and every date of hearing and that he shall not object recording of the evidence in his absence and that no adjournment shall be asked for on behalf of the appellant and/or his advocate;
(2) That the appellant shall appear before the Trial Court for the purpose of framing of the charges and also on other hearing dates whenever the Trial Court insists for his appearance; (3) If there is any failure on the part of the advocate who is to represent the appellant, either to appear before the Trial Court on each adjournment and/or any adjournment is sought on behalf of the appellant and/or if the Trial Court is of the opinion that the appellant and/or his advocate is trying to delay the trial, in that case, it would be open for the Trial Court to exercise its powers under Section 205(2) Cr.P.C. and direct the appearance of the appellant on each and every date of adjournment. [Para 7][143B-G] Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 219 – relied on.
Rameshwar Yadav V. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608 : [2018] 4 SCR 1055 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.