Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : K.Bhimiah
JAGADGURU SACHIDANANDA SHANKARABHARATHI SWAMI OF SRI KUDLI SRINGERI MUTT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MYSORE - Respondent
Criminal Revn. Petn. 302 Of 1967
Decided On : 04/03/1968
Exemption - Criminal Offences - Section 489B, 489A, 489C IPC - The court refused to extend exemption to the accused from appearing before the court till the disposal of the case. The court held that the accused's presence was necessary while recording evidence and that evidence recorded in the absence of the accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence of guilt or innocence under Section 288 Cr. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the 4th accused in a fake note case, sought exemption from appearing before the court till the disposal of the case. The court refused the extension of exemption, leading to the filing of the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's presence was necessary while recording evidence and that evidence recorded in the absence of the accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence of guilt or innocence under Section 288 Cr. P. C. The court held that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in refusing to extend the exemption from appearance before the Court were valid in law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned Magistrate properly exercised his discretion in refusing to grant further extension of exemption from appearance before the Court to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's presence was necessary while recording evidence and that evidence recorded in the absence of the accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence of guilt or innocence under Section 288 Cr. P. C.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition failed and was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the 4th accused in a fake note case pending on the file of the City Magistrate, bangalore. The allegation against him is that he purchased 4508 counterfeit currency notes of 10 rupee denomination valued at Rupees 45,080/- from A-2 and A-3 between 8-4-1965 and 13-8-1965 which constituted and offence punishable under Section 489b, I. P. C. Further the act of A-4 in allowing and giving facilities to A-2 and A-3 in his press at Bangalore to cut the said counterfeit currency notes into sizes which constitutes a part of the process of counterfeiting currency notes and thereby abetted the cutting of the said counterfeit notes in his press at bangalore by A-2 and A-3 between 10-8-1965 and 13-8-1965 which constitutes an offence under s. 489a read with S. 109, I. P. C. Further the allegation is that he was in possession of the abovesaid counterfeit currency notes in his Mutt bungalow at Bangalore between 13-8-1965 and 22-2-1966 knowing them to be counterfeit and intended to use them as genuine or that the same may be used as genuine which constitutes an offence punishable under Section 489c, I. P. C.
( 3 ) AFTER the charge sheet was filed before the Court, the court issued summons to A-4 to appear before the court in person or through his pleader. After the service of summons, the accused appeared through his pleader on 19-9-1966 and was exempted from his appearance for that day. Again on 3-10-1966 the accused was present in the court and he was bound over with a surety.
( 4 ) ON 17-10-66 A-4 was exempted from his appearance from the Court till the stage of recording the evidence. Exemption continued till 3-4-67 on which date the counsel for A-4 was absent and the court ordered non-bailable warrant to A-4. Later on the same day A-4's counsel appeared and filed an application for recalling the warrant. The Court ordered not to issue warrant against A-4. Till 30-8-67 A-4 was exempted from his appearance before the Court; on that day an application was filed on behalf of A-4 to extend the exemption till the disposal of the case. The Court while disposing of the said application was of the opinion that in a case of this nature while recording evidence it is absolutely necessary that the accused should be present. Further, the Court was also of the opinion that under Section 288, Cr. P. C. evidence recorded under Chapter 18 can be read as evidence by the trial court if the evidence is recorded in the presence of the accused. In this view of the matter the court did not grant the request made on behalf of A-4 to exempt him from appearance for that day and adjourned the case to 19-9-1967. A-4 being aggrieved by the order dated 30-8-1967 refusing to extend exemption till the disposal of the case, has filed the above revision petition.
( 5 ) MR. B. Ramachandra Rao, learned Advocate for the petitioner has firstly contended that there is no difficulty for the prosecution witnesses to identify the accused as they identify him by name and not by his person. Secondly he contended that the evidence recorded by the Committal magistrate in the mode prescribed under Section 353, Cr. P. C. can be treated as evidence under section 288, Cr. P. C. Thirdly he contended that provisions of Sections 205, 353 and 540-A, cr. P. C. must be liberally construed as they are intended to safeguard the interest of the accused. He added that when once an exemption is granted either under Section 205 or under Section 540-A, Cr. P. C. it must subsist throughout the duration of the enquiry. Fourthly he contended that having regard to the petitioner's position as the head of the Mutt having responsibility of performing poojas according to the shastras throughout the day, his personal attendance must be dispensed with. He Further contended that th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
