2024 Supreme(Cal) 783
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Professor Bidyut Chakraborty – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
C.R.R. 5023 of 2023
Decided on : 18-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Pritam Roy, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Sinha, Adv. Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Subhamoy Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Shankar Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Soumi Aich, Adv, Mr. S. Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Ashok Das, Adv.
The court emphasized the discretionary power of the trial court under Section 205 of the CrPC to exempt the accused from personal appearance based on the circumstances of the case and the necessity for his presence.
Headnote:
Section 205 - Exemption from personal appearance - 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Vice-Chancellor, sought exemption from personal appearance in a case under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, due to old age and illness. The trial court insisted on his personal appearance despite an interim order not to take coercive steps against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in insisting on the petitioner's personal appearance, given the nature of the alleged offences and the petitioner's circumstances. It set aside the trial court's order and directed the trial court to decide the exemption application without insisting on the petitioner's physical appearance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court could insist on the petitioner's personal appearance despite his application for exemption under Section 205 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court can exercise its discretionary power under Section 205 of the CrPC to exempt the accused from personal appearance based on the circumstances of the case and the necessity for his presence. It emphasized that the purpose is to proceed with the trial smoothly and without prejudice to the parties.
Final Decision: The revisional application was disposed of with the direction to the trial court to decide the exemption application without insisting on the petitioner's physical appearance.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. This instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Learned Special Court under the Atrocity Act, 1st Court, Suri in connection with Special (A) 8 of 2023 arising out of Shantiniketan Police Station Case No. 89/2023 dated 05.07.2023 under Sections 500/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 now pending 1st before the Learned Additional District Judge, Court, Suri, Birbhum thereby a notice has been issued upon the petitioner to remain personally present before the Ld. Court on 19.01.2024 and the petition under Section 205 will be considered only on his appearance though the petitioner has filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 07.10.2023 seeking exemption of personal appearance and represented through his learned advocate.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts leading to filing this criminal revisional application are that one Dr. Prashant Meshram lodged a written complaint against the present petitioner and others on 01.07.2023 alleging that the de-facto complainant experienced a worst humiliation in his service tenure at Visva Bharati University in a meeting dated 26.06.2023 conveyed at 11.30 a.m. inviting all the Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Assistant Registrars and other senior officers of the University including the de-facto complainant and the said meeting was supposed to discuss administrative issues. Professor Bidyut Chakraborty, Vice-Chancellor of Visva Bharati University and Mahua Banerjee in-charge of Public Relation Officer first abused him for filing a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and further uttered abusive remarks on his protest. He was not allowed to speak on such abuses and further identified all the officers belonged to Reserved Category by saying ‘you are Scheduled Castes’, ‘you are OBC’, ‘you are Scheduled Tribes’ etc. and directed his confidential Secretary not to allow any of the officers of these categories to call him on phone
3. It is further alleged that the accused Professor Bidyut Chakraborty, Vice-Chancellor, Visva Bharati University in collusion with Ms. Mahua Banerjee, in-charge of Public Relation Officer gave false and fabricated information of his involvement of financial defalcation to the media intentionally to insult and humiliate him within public view resulted in irreparable damage of his reputation among the public and society and finally alleged that the Professor Bidyut Chakraborty and his associates severely damaged his service career, future prospect of his service and consequentially caused financial damages, damage of his reputation by making derogatory and mental agony and harassment etc. resulted in registration of Shantiniketan Police Station Case No. 89/2023 dated 05.07.2023 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r)(v)(p)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the three accused persons namely, Professor Bidyut Chakraborty, Vice-Chancellor, Ms. Mahua Banerjee, in-charge of Public Relation Officer and Dr. Tanmay Nag, Deputy Registrar, Visva Bharati University. The said FIR was challenged in an another revisional application filed by the petitioner being CRR 2599/2023 seeking quashing of aforesaid proceeding. After hearing the parties, this Hon’ble High Court passed an interim order and directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners namely, Professor Bidyut Chakraborty, Ms. Mahua Banerjee and Dr. Tanmay Nag though the investigation of the cases to be continued. The said interim order extended time to time and still in existence.
4. In the meantime, charge sheet No. 101/2023 under Sections 500/120B/34 IPC re