Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 790
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Kalachi @ Rajalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
State by The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Respondents
Crl. R.C. Nos.191 to 193 of 2006 & Crl.M.P.Nos.1112 to 1114 of 2006
Decided On : 22 March 2006
The discretionary power of the court to grant exemption from personal appearance and the necessity of the accused's presence for specific hearings and trial processes.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Non-bailable Warrant - Sections 70(2), 317, 205 - 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code - [70(2), 317, 205, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code] - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 70(2), 317, and 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the issuance of non-bailable warrants, condoning absence, and dispensing with the accused's presence. It also referenced the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the necessity of the accused's presence for receiving copies of documents and statements, and the discretionary power of the court to grant exemption from personal appearance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, arraigned as the third accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, filed petitions under Sections 70(2), 317, and 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to recall the non-bailable warrant, condone her absence, and dispense with her presence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitions filed by the petitioner were not sustainable as there was a non-bailable warrant pending against her, and her presence was necessary for crucial hearings. The court concluded that the petitions were not maintainable, and dismissed them.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request to recall the non-bailable warrant, condone her absence, and dispense with her presence in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance is discretionary, and the accused's presence was necessary for specific hearings. It also emphasized the importance of the accused's participation in the trial process and receiving copies of documents and statements.
Final Decision: Crl.R.C.Nos.191 to 193 of 2006 and connected criminal miscellaneous petitions were dismissed by the court.
(Revisions preferred under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 30.1.2006 in Crl.M.P.Nos.51, 52 and 53 of 2006 respectively in Spl. C.C.No.1 of 2005 on the file of the learned Special Judge No.1/X Additional Judge, Chennai.)
As against the order of dismissal passed in Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2006 filed under Section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.R.C.No.191 of 2006 has been preferred before the learned Special Judge No.1/X Additional Judge, Chennai.
2. As against the order of dismissal passed in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2006 filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.R.C.No.192 of 2006 has been preferred before the learned Special Judge No.1/X Additional Judge, Chennai.
3. As against the order of dismissal passed in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2006 filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Crl.R.C.No.193 of 2006 has been preferred before the learned Special Judge No.1/X Additional Judge, Chennai.
4. The petitioner has been arraigned as third accused in a case under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 launched totally against 20 accused.
5. The learned Special Judge, having taken cognizance of the aforesaid case, issued summons to all the accused to appear on 29.7.2005. The case thereafter stood posted to 23.9.2005 and then to 25.1.2006. As some of the accused were found absent, non-bailable warrants were issued after the petitions filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for condoning their absence were dismissed.
6. The other absentee accused, except the third accused, surrendered and the non-bailable warrants issued against them were recalled. The third accused, who has not chosen to show up before the Court in spite of the non-bailable warrant pending against her, has filed the aforesaid petitions under Section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the non-bailable warrant, under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to condone her absence and under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with her presence and permit her to appear by her Pleader.
7. The learned trial Judge, having adverted to the various authorities ruling the subject, returned a decision that the petitioner against whom non-bailable warrant is pending, cannot seek for the reliefs under Sections 70 (2), 317 and 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is an Octogenarian aged 87 years, is suffering from serious ailment and therefore she could not attend the Court.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is hale and healthy and she avoids receiving the copies of the documents and statements under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure just to facilitate the other accused to drag on the matter.
10. On a perusal of the records, it is found that the case was originally registered way back in the year 1996, but the chargesheet was laid only in the year 2005. The trial Court has given ample opportunity for the present accused to appear before the Court to receive the copies of the documents and statements under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the accused has not turned up to receive the copies of documents and statements. The learned Special Judge has chosen to issue non-bailable warrant as against the petitioner to compel her presence before the Court to comply with the mandates of the provision under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in letter and spirit.
11. Of Course, the Court has ample power to dispense with the appearance/attendance of the accused on a particular hearing when the accused is represented by a Pleader under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to dispense with the personal
