This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Jammu in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2010 filed before him against an order of the Sub-Judge Magistrate First Class, Jammu, rejecting an application of Mst. Savitri for exemption from personal attendance in a case under Ss. 363 and 366, R. P. C., in which she figured as one of the accused persons, on the ground that under S. 353, Cr. P. C., the trial Magistrate had no power to grant such exemption. The learned Sessions Judge after examining the case, has held that the order of the trial Magistrate was wrong and that he had power under S. 353, Cr. P. C., to exempt an accused person from personal attendance before him. He has, therefore recommended that the order of the trial Magistrate should be set aside and that Mst. Savitri should be exempted from personal attendance in Court subject to the condition that she should appear in Court on occasions when her presence is considered essential by the trial Magistrate.

(2) We have heard arguments in this case. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that S. 353, Cr. P. C., does not by itself empower the trial Magistrate to exempt an accused person from person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document