1978 Supreme(AP) 212
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.MUKTADAR
KUMARI N.HANNARAMA - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRODDATUR - Respondent
Decided On : 07-23-78
The court may dispense with the personal appearance of the accused based on the provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the specific circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Section 205 - Dispensing with Personal Appearance - The court allowed the petitioner's application for exemption from personal appearance based on the provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner's circumstances as a social worker running multiple institutions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application to dispense with her personal appearance during the trial, which was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner appealed through a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court did not exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and allowed the petitioner's application for exemption from personal appearance.
Issues: The issue was whether the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's application for exemption from personal appearance was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner's circumstances as a social worker running multiple institutions to dispense with her personal appearance.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the order of the lower court was set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to appear through her Advocate.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 120/78 on the file of the first Class, Magistrate Proddatur. She filed Cr. M. P. No. 412 of 1978 to dispense with her personal appearance during the trial The learned Magistrate dismissed that application. Hence this revision.
( 2 ) MR. Babulu Reddy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner brings to my notice the provisions of section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and contends that the trial Court has not at all exercised its discretion in a judicious manner. The petitioner is admittedly running three schools and two hostels, and has further activities being a social worker. Therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner to be at Proddatur at every stage of the proceedings. Therefore, she filed the application for exemption from personal appearance. I am of the opinion that invariably the High Cour , does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court, but this is a case where the lower court has not exercised its discretion in a judicious manner. The petitioner has been specifically pointing out as to why she is asking for dispensing with her personal appearance i. e. , on the ground that she is running three institutions and two hostels and she has other activities being a social worker and, therefore, it would be difficult for her to be present in person in the court on every date of hearing. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 205 Cr. P. C. personal appearance of the petitioner should be dispensed witb and is hereby dispensed with. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagvandas vs. State where it is held;"the law enjoins that an accused should be present during the course of the trial more to safeguard his interests than to cause him inconvenience. In a case where the accused himself applies to the court to be exempted from personal appearance then a court should grant his request unless it is of opinion that in the interests of justice it is necessary that the accused should be present throughout the course of the trial, or unless there are some other good reasons for directing the presence of the accused throughout the course of the trial". Hence this revision is allowed, the order of the lower court is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to appear through her Advocate. M. N. R. Crl. R. P. allowed.