Accused can be exempted from personal appearance in the trial court if represented by counsel, subject to giving necessary undertakings, as per the provisions of Section 205 and Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This revision application under Section 401 read with 482 of the Cr.P.C. directed against the order dated 29-4-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Crl. Rev No. 45(4) of 2001 affirming the order dated 6-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agaratala in CR No. 1199/2000.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is the Vice President, Corporate Human Resources Management and Communication of Kirloskar Brother Ltd. Having its office at Awas 11/46, Nirmal Boug Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Road, P.S. Pune, Pune/411 002. It is stated in the revision petition that Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Employs more than four thousands workers and staffs in its establishment at its three factories located in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and is having regional office and branch office all over the country. For the purpose of management and meeting the daily needs of the workers and staff, it is necessary for the petitioner to be available at its office at all times. It is further stated in the revision petition that the petition that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala was pleased to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500/501 of the IPC and issued summon against the petitioner. On receipt of the summon, the petitioner contacted his Advocate to ascertain the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the complaint case against him. The petitioner states that similar notice was also received by one Sri Sanjoy Kirloskar whereupon the said Sanjoy Kirloskar filed an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before this Court being Crl. Rev. No. 13 of 2001 for quashing the proceeding before the learned trial Court. After hearing the both sides, this Court was pleased to quash the said proceeding in so far as the said Sanjoy Kirloskar is concerned vide judgment dated 27-4-2001. The petitioner decided to contest the proceeding before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and accordingly, engaged his advocate to enter into appearance on his behalf of and take all necessary steps for contesting the said proceeding. Accordingly, Sri Hare Krishna Bhowmik, Counsel for the petitioner entered his appearance on behalf of the petitioner and on 26-6-2001 filed an application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. praying for exempting the petitioner from appearing before the learned Trial Court with the following undertakings.

(a) That the petitioner will never dispute or challenge his identity during the trial before the learned Trial Court.

(b) That he will attend the trial Court as and when desire by the learned Trial Court.

3. He also stated in his petition the circumstances under which he could not personally attend the Trial Court. Against this petition, the opposite party filed an objection contending that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the provisions of Section 205, Cr.P.C. apply at the time when summon was issued and it cannot be invoked by the accused petitioner at this stage.

4. Learned Trial Court after hearing rejected the application filed by the petitioner by his order dated 6-10-2002 on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared even once from the very inception of the case. By relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 1 SCC 710 the trial Court held that the first appearance of the accused person is a must in the Court when the case is pending. After which the Court may exempt the accused from personal appearance. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura challenging the said order of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the order dated 29-4-2002 dismissed the revision petition.

5. Aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Trial Court and the Addl. Sessions Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court