Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Mr. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 605 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 205, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 477A - Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused - Saving of inherent powers of High Court - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Falsification of accounts - Mere fact that cognizance had been taken and the offences alleged are non-bailable cannot be reasons for rejecting the prayer under Section 205 CrPC. (Para 45)
Findings of the Court :
Principal Special Judge fell in grave error by bringing in the above factors while considering the request of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance. This is further aggravated by the observation of the learned Principal Special Judge that in criminal proceedings trial should be conducted in presence of the accused and therefore, his request for exemption from personal appearance should not be considered. Court is afraid learned Principal Special Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the principle that trial has to be conducted in presence of the accused is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial; nothing is done behind the back of the accused. Provision seeking exemption from personal appearance is intended for the benefit of the accused. Those cannot be interpreted in a manner which causes hardship and prejudice to the accused.
Result : Petition allowed.
Key Points: - Provisions requiring the presence of the accused which mandate that the trial be held in his presence are enacted for the benefit of the accused (!) . - The Magistrate has discretion to dispense with personal attendance of the accused if he sees reason so to do, and the accused cannot be required to be present on each and every date of hearing (!) . - The court must ensure that exemption from personal appearance is not abused to delay the trial and that the accused does not suffer unnecessary harassment (!) . - Personal attendance of the accused is not required if the accused does not wish to avail of it, has full confidence in the court and advocate, and his absence does not prejudice him or hinder trial progress (!) . - The discretion under Section 205 CrPC must be exercised reasonably and liberally, except where serious issues or allegations of moral turpitude are involved (!) . - The fact that cognizance had been taken and the offences alleged are non-bailable cannot be reasons for rejecting the prayer under Section 205 CrPC (!) . - The court must consider changed circumstances, but grave offences affecting the economy cannot alone justify refusal to grant exemption (!) (!) . - The trial court erred in relying on observations regarding grave offences and alleged delays at the threshold of considering personal appearance (!) . - Exemption from personal appearance cannot be granted if it would result in unnecessary harassment or cause prejudice to the complainant or delay the trial (!) . - The accused remains entitled to be represented by his authorized advocate if personal appearance is dispensed with (!) .
ORDER :
Heard Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Surender, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (as his Lordship then was).
2. This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (briefly ‘CrPC’ hereinafter) for quashing the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1762 of 2019 in C.C.No.10 of 2012 and for a direction to allow the petitioner to be represented by his counsel holding Vakalat during the proceedings in C.C.No.10 of 2012 on the file of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.
3. Petitioner is presently the Chief Minister for the State of Andhra Pradesh and is residing at Vijayawada in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
4. It is stated that a writ petition was filed before the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the form of a public interest litigation being W.P.No.794 of 2011 seeking investigation by CBI into alleged deeds of corruption committed by the petitioner and others leading to sudden increase in wealth. The High Court by order dated 10.08.2011 directed CBI to cause investigation, whereafter CBI registered R.C.No.19(A)/2011 against the petitioner and others. In the course of investigation petitioner was arrested. CBI filed altogether eleven charge sheets arraying the petitioner as accused No.1. These proceedings are pending before the Court of Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad (briefly ‘CBI Court’).
5. Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the CBI Court on 23.09.2013 with certain conditions. The conditions were as follows :
ii. The Petitioner/A-1 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to pay person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.
iii. Petitioner/A-1 shall stay at Hyderabad and shall not leave Hyderabad without prior permission of the Court.
iv. The Petitioner/A-1 shall appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case without fail. He may remain absent only in unavoidable circumstances and with the permission of the Court.
v. The Respondent/CBI has liberty to make a proper application for cancellation of the bail, if the Petitioner/A-1 violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
6. It is stated that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail, respondent/CBI filed subsequent charge sheets. Additionally, Enforcement Directorate has also filed several complaints. Because of multiplicity of charge sheets and complaints involving several agencies, proceedings against the petitioner have become complex. Further, following the directions of this Court dated 10.08.2015 passed in PIL No.145 of 2015, the cases against the petitioner are being taken up on a weekly basis.
7. In view of continuation of the proceedings over a long period of time due to filing of lengthy supplementary charge sheets by the respondent/CBI, followed by complaints by the Enforcement Directorate, petitioner approached the CBI Court and sought relaxation of the bail conditions. In Crl.M.P.No.1540 of 2013, petitioner was permitted to visit New Delhi and other places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Again in Crl.M.P.No.1648 of 2014, the requirement of two days advance intimation for leaving Hyderabad was dispensed with.
8. Petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2323 of 2015 praying for relaxation of the following bail conditions :
iv. The Petitioner/A-1 shall appear before this Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case without fail. He may remain absent only in unavoidable circumstances and with the permiss
Point of Law : Provisions requiring the presence of the accused which mandate that the trial be held in his presence are enacted for the benefit of the accused.
Exemption from personal appearance – Discretion to dispense with personal appearance should be exercised in rare cases but still it would be allowed to those accused who could not come to court due t....
The discretion of the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C, considering the nature of the case and the conduct of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Court to exempt an accused from personal appearance at all stages of the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of safeguard....
The court has discretion to exempt an accused from personal appearance based on individual circumstances, particularly health and age, ensuring trial efficiency.
Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused if he thinks it is reasonable to do so at his discretion – Such discretion can be exercises in rare cases under certain circumstances where....
Magistrate may attendance of accused -Whenever a Magistrate issues may, if he sees reason so to with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant exemption from personal appearance and allow virtual hearings, considering the provisions of Cr.P.C., relevant case....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
