1. Criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 376, 417, and 506 IPC — High Court's direction to dispense with personal attendance of the accused under Section 205 CrPC. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 824
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.)
LILY BEGUM
Versus
JOY CHANDRA NAGBANSHI.
Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 1993 {Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2789 of 1992}, decided on September 20, 1993
Important Points
The privilege of dispensation of personal attendance should be carefully considered in cases with serious allegations to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Subject
Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
Dispensation of Personal Attendance - Criminal Proceedings - The court set aside the direction to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a petition to quash criminal proceedings against him, which was dismissed by the High Court. The High Court directed the trial court to allow the accused to be represented by his advocate without personal attendance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the reason given by the High Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused untenable, especially in a case with serious allegations. It set aside the direction and directed the accused to appear before the trial court on all hearings, with the possibility of dispensation under extreme and exceptional circumstances.
Issues: Dispensation of personal attendance in criminal proceedings, seriousness of allegations, confidence in the administration of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The privilege of dispensation of personal attendance should be carefully considered in cases with serious allegations to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the direction to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused was set aside, with the requirement for the accused to appear before the trial court on all hearings, subject to extreme and exceptional circumstances.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the personal attendance of an accused in a case involving serious allegations can be dispensed with based on their social standing and local recognition. (Para 3 )
3. Dispensing with personal attendance in cases involving serious allegations based on the accused's social standing is untenable and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. (Para 4 )
4. Personal attendance of an accused under Section 205 CrPC should not be dispensed with in serious criminal cases based solely on social standing or local recognition. (Para 4 )
5. High Court's direction to dispense with personal attendance set aside — accused directed to appear at all hearings, especially during examination of material witnesses. (Para 4 )
6. Can the personal attendance of an accused be dispensed with under Section 205 CrPC based on their social standing?
No, the court held that dispensing with personal attendance because the accused is a social worker known to the people is untenable in cases involving serious allegations, as such privileges may undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. (Para 4 )
7. Under what conditions may a trial court consider a request for dispensation of personal attendance in serious criminal cases?
The court may consider such requests only in extreme and exceptional circumstances brought to its satisfaction, provided the accused appears for all hearings where material witnesses are examined. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the records.
3. The respondent (accused) Joy Chandra Nagbanshi had filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 IPC, The High Court dismissed that petition but, however, it directed the trial court to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent (accused) and to permit him to appear by his advocate. The relevant portion of the direction reads thus :
"Mr Roy, however states that the petitioner is a social worker and he is known to people of the village. He therefore prayed that he be allowed to be represented by his advocate on subsequent dates. I accept this prayer and direct the trial court to allow representation by his advocate if he is known to the people and no identification is required."
4. In our opinion, the reason given by the High Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent (accused) by invoking the powers under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is untenable especially in a case of this nature, wherein serious allegations are made against the respondent (accused). If such a privilege, in our opinion, is given to an accused in a case of this nature, people will lose their confidence in the administration of justice. Hence we set aside that direction and direct the respondent to appear before the trial court on all hearings. In case, there is any extreme and exceptional circumstance brought to the satisfaction of the court that the accused is unable to appear before the court, the court may consider the request, if any, made by the respondent for dispensation of his personal attendance on any particular hearing, and pass appropriate orders. However, we make it clear that the respondent should make his appearance before the trial court on all the hearings when the material witnesses are examined. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
For Citation : 1994 (2) SCC 39
