IMPORTANT POINT
Discretion to allow exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr. P.C. has to be exercised Judiciously and once it is so exercised same should not be interfered with simply because a litigant feels aggrieved by that order.

ORDER

P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard.

2. This revision application is disposed of at the stage of hearing on admission with active participation of both the parties.

3. Order dated 27-3-2000 in I.C.C. No. 163 of 1999 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Khurda is under challenge in this revision filed at the instance of the complainant who is the petitioner. Learned S.D.J.M. on 27-3-2000 allowed the prayer of the opposite parties 2 and 3 who are accused persons in that case to be represented under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code')

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that keeping in view the involvement of the opposite parties 2 and 3 in a case under Secs. 452. 380 and 506. I.P.C. particularly in view of the punishment provided for those offences, it can safely be stated that they are not entitled for exemption for personal appearance in view of the ratio in the case of Jagadguru Sachidananda Shankara bharati Swami of Sri Kudli Sringen Mutta v. State of Mysore1. Kama Prasad Rout and others v. Chandrakanti Bal and others2 and Joy Singh Rajpur and another v. Bachheraj Duggal3 and therefore, the impugned order of learned S.D.J.M. is illegal and not sustainable.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 on the other hand supporting the impugned order places reliance on the cases of Damodar Misra v. State of Orissa4. Tilotama Kar and others v. Ranjitarani Satpathy and others5 and Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Orissa6.

6. During the course of argument several extraneous factual aspects have been highlighted by both the parties casting aspersion against each other and this Court finding that to be irrelevant considers only the point of law under Sec. 209, Cr. P.C. mooted during the course of hearing to examine legality of the impugned order.

In Joy Singh Rajpur (supra) the Assam High Court considered the question as to whether representation under Sec. 205, Cr. P.C. should be allowed when Non-bailable Warrant of arrest was issued against the accused. That ratio has no relevancy inasmuch as in the present case summons had been issued. In the case of Jagadguru (supra) the Mysore High Court affirmed the order of the lower Court rejecting the prayer to extend the representation till end of the trial, inter alia, on the ground of the provision in Sec. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. That decision is also of no relevance. In Kama Prasad (supra) this Court reiterated the principle that personal appearance of an accused is the rule in criminal case of serious nature involving moral turpitude and punishable with imprisonment for some length of time. In Tilotama (supra) this Court held that when it concerns a Pardanashin lady, high placed public functionary a busy captain of an industry and persons rendering public service then normally Court should dispense with personal appearance of the accused belonging to that categories. When the present petitioner was accused for the offences alleged under Sees. 468, 469 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code besides another criminal case was also pending against him, he along with the co-accused being an Assistant Manager in NABARD applied for representation under Sec. 205 of the Code but rejected by learned S.D.J.M. he approached this Court for remedy and in the decision reported in (1998) 14 OCR 575 (supra) it was held that because the petitioner is a practising advocate aI1d the other accused is an officer rendering public service should be exempted from personal appearance. In the case of Kamaljeet (supra) after considering the scope and object of Sec. 205 of the Code this Court summarised thus:

8. On perusal of the case law referred to above it appears that this Court has taken a consistent view regarding the scope of Sec. 205 of the Code. It is readable from the aforesaid decisions that:

(i) personal appearance of the accused in a criminal trial is the normal rule and exempting from personal appearance is an exception which can be resorte