Sharma, J.—This is an application by the complainant, Iqbal Hussain, in a case under secs. 147, 379 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been challaned in the Court of Extra Magistrate, Chirawa at Jhunjhunu, against Fateh Mohammad Shah and others. Fateh Mohammad Shah made an application before the Magistrate that he be exempted from personal attendance under sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because he was a Shajjadanashin, and had a lot of disciples, and was an old man of 60. The learned Magistrate exempted him from personal appearance on both the grounds of respectability as well as age. Against this order, the applicant Iqbal Hussain went in revision to the Court of Session at Jhunjhunu. The learned Sessions Judge held that sec. 205 Cr.P.C. was not applicable, but dismissed the application for revision on the ground that exemption could be given under sec. 353 Cr.P.C. The complainant has now come to this Court in revision.

2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that sec. 205 Cr.P.C. was not applicable according to the view of the learned Sessions Judge himself. He argued that sec. 353 Cr.P.C. too was not applicable as what it lays down is that all evidence taken under Chapters XVIII, XX, XXII, and XXIII shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader. It does not authorise the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance. He further argued that although in the Sessions judgment no reference is made to sec. 540 A, yet even that section was not applicable, as it applied when any one or more of several accused is, or are incapable of remaining before the court. He proceeded to argue that even the residuary sec. 561 A, which confers inherent power on he High Court was not applicable. The accused Fateh Mohammad Shah could not, therefore, be legally exempted from personal appearance in court. He also argued that the grounds on which exemption was given were also not sound. The fact that an accused was a respectable man or a religious head would not by itself entitle an accused to exemption from personal appearance in a criminal case For this he relied on Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. As regards old age, he argued that first of all there was controversy as to the age of the accused, but even if it be assumed that he was 60 years old, that fact alone was not sufficient for giving him exemption.

3. Rulings of various High Courts for and against him were very fairly and frankly put by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was decided in Re Hasanath (1) (A.I.R. 1947 Madras 433.) that sec. 205 Cr.P.C. applies only to cases in which the Magistrate has issued a summons in the first instance and not where the accused had been arrested without or after the issue of a warrant." It was further held that "sec. 353 by necessary implication confers power on the presiding officer whether he is a Magistrate or a Sessions Judge or a Judge of the High Court to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused person." It was also held that "sec 561A is wide enough to confer power on High Court to direct the Magistrate to dispense with the presence of accused during an enquiry before him." The ruling of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Aditya Pd. Bagchi vs. Jogendra Nath Maitra (2) (A.I.R. 1948 Allahabad 393.) also lends support to the view that such a power is implied under sec. 353. Again, there is a Full Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sultan Singh Jain vs. The State (3) (A.I.R. 1951 Allahabad 864.), in which it was held that "the reference in sec. 353 to the power of a trial Court to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused clearly implies that the trial Court has such a power of granting exemption." In Rajkumar Singh vs. State through Director of Food, Madhya Bharat, Indore (4) (A.I.R. 1951 M.B. 28.) it was held that "under sec. 561A. High Court has inh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document