IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL th ON THE 10 OF JULY, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2952 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

1. WAQAR AHMAD S/O SHRI NISAR AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 89/49 SAHANATTHAN STREET NEAR TEHSIL KOTWALI MEERUT (UTTAR PRADESH)

2. NASIR CHAUHAN S/O SHRI SABIR CHAUHAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 26 DEVNAGAR NEAR BACCHA PARK DISTRICT MEERUT (UTTAR PRADESH)

3. AYAN RIZWI S/O SHRI EHSAN RIZWI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 72 ABRAR NAGAR NISADI ROAD DISTRICT MEERUT (UTTAR PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (SHRI FAISAL ALI SHAH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH SHO POLICE STATION UNIVERSITY, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (MS. KALPANA PARMAR- LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-

STATE)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

By way of this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC, the petitioners seeking set aside of impugned order dated 19-06-2023 passed by Court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA No. 534 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 317 of CrPC has been rejected and arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioners.

It is contended by Shri Shah that the petitioners are facing trial for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and trial is at evidence stage. An application was filed on their behalf under Section 317 of CrPC before the trial Court for exemption from their appearance and the same has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the witnesses have to identify the accused and therefore, exemption cannot be granted. It is further contended that on 19-06-2023 when the case was fixed for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, on that date one witness who is the recovery and arrest witness, Sumit Singh was present through arrest warrant and prior to the fixed date, the petitioners had gone to out of station for work but due to piper joy cyclone they could not attend the Court and, therefore, application under Section 317 of CrPC was moved on their behalf and in the application it was not mentioned about their identification and the learned trial Court without proper reason/cause, rejected the aforesaid application which is contrary to law.

Learned counsel for the respondent- State supported the impugned order and prayed for its rejection.

''Section 317 of the CrPC deals with the provision for granting the accused exemption from personally appearing before the Court and further allows him to be present in the proceedings through his counsel.''

Considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of aforesaid provision of Section 317 of CrPC and the impugned order, this Court thinks it apposite that one more opportunity be given to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA petitioners to lead their evidence and a date be given for their appearance before the Court below for the same.

Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)

JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA