IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the power to dispense with personal attendance under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised with sound discretion, considering the nature of the charges, the status of the accused, and the potential impact on the accused's professional obligations.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 14-A(2) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.1064 of 2021 (Special Act) in rejecting the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant Dr. Hemangini Meher dispensing with her personal appearance in the case.

4. The case was instituted on the basis of the written report presented by one Sangita Naik before the I.I.C., Bhawanipatna Town Police Station on 30.09.2021 and accordingly, the case under sections 294/341/323 of the I.P.C. was registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 20.03.2022 against the appellant under sections 341/323 of the I.P.C. read with section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.

5. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.09.2021 at about 9.00 a.m. when the informant had come from Th. Rampur along with one pregnant lady Khiramani Jhadia to the District Headquarters Hospital, Bhawanipatna, at that time the appellant asked the informant when she came to the hospital. The informant replied that she had come since one hour. Then the appellant alleged to have given a slap on the face of the informant and also abused her.

6. During the course of investigation, the I.O., who is the S.D.P.O. (Sadar), Bhawanipatna served notice under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. on the appellant and ultimately, on completion of the investigation, finding prima facie case, the charge sheet was submitted.

7. The appellant filed a petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C., inter alia, taking the grounds that she is a public servant and used to attend patients in all emergency and non-emergency cases and her attendance in field in attending patients is essential and therefore, her personal appearance may be dispensed with. It is further stated that the appellant may be allowed to be represented through her counsel and she undertook to appear as and when her personal appearance would be required by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, in the impugned order, held that nowhere in the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that the appellant, being a medical officer, is remaining busy for round the clock in her profession and no single evidence has been supplied to prove the averments taken in the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, allowing the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. would be like granting a blank cheque, which would affect the process of Court in framing of charge and other proceeding in which the presence of the appellant would be highly required. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant under section 205 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

8. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the offences alleged against the appellant are not serious offences and the appellant is a lady and she is a Government doctor, specialised in Gynecology and specific averments have been taken in the petition under section 205, Cr.P.C. as to how she used to attend her public duty in emergency as well as nonemergency cases and her attendance for the public field is very much necessary and therefore, in a minor case of this nature, it was not proper for the learned trial Court to disallow the petition and insist on personal appearance of the appellant, particularly when an undertaking was given by the appellant to appear before the learned trial Court as and when required. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Benjamin Roul -Vrs.- Sajal Das reported in 2017 (II) ILR CUT 964.

9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of this appeal in limine as it holds hardly any merit.

10. Section 205 of the Cr.