The court established that courts have the discretion to exempt personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C., particularly in cases involving women and genuine personal circumstances.

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 6^th accused in C.C.

No.2383 of 2014 of JFCM-I, Chavakkad. Pending the proceedings, she filed M.P. No.10556 of 2016 seeking permission to go abroad on the premise that her husband, who is employed in gulf country has arranged a job for her. The court below, by order dated 11.11.2016 rejected the application on the ground that the trial cannot be proceeded without the presence of the accused. Hence, the discretion under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. was declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the affidavit she had specifically stated that when the company was incorporated, she was a minor. The affidavit shows that she is aged 20 years. She has also denied the various transactions. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in the affidavit filed by the 6^th accused it was specifically stated that if evidence is recorded in her absence, she will not challenge it. It was also reiterated that the charge read over in her absence and in the presence of the counsel as well as Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Statement read over will be answered by the counsel and it will be binding on her.

It was also asserted that she will not challenge it. It was also undertaken that the petitioner herein will not challenge any discrepancies regarding her identity and that she is ready and willing to appear before the court as and when directed by the court. In spite of the above undertaking, the court below refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Sec.205 Cr.P.C., it was contended.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of this Court inMathew v. State of Kerala [ 1986 KLT 128 ], wherein it was held that the courts are armed with sufficient power to exempt a person from personal appearance in genuine cases. InHelen Rubber Industries v.State [ 1972 KLT 794 ] it was held that when the accused are women, labourers, wage earners and other busy man, the court should as a rule grant exemption from personal appearance. The Supreme Court has reiterated this in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. [ 2001 KHC 714 ].

4. Having considered these judicial pronouncements and applied in the facts of the case, I feel that the court below ought to have allowed the permission subject to a rider that she should be present as and when directed by the court below.

Hence, the Crl.M.C. is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to go abroad till such time as Court finds her presence absolutely necessary and on a specific condition that she shall be properly represented by a counsel and that she shall appear before court below, when the court below directs.