Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 536/M of 1979, decided on 13th June, 1979.

----Ss. 439‑A & 561‑A‑Sessions Court having exercised jurisdiction under S. 439‑A second revision in High Court not competent‑Held, inherent jurisdiction under S. 561‑A to correct any error can be invoked.‑[Revision (criminal)].

--‑‑S. 540‑A‑‑.Exemption from personal appearance‑Accused appearing in Court for more than 2J years stucking abroad before next date of hearing‑Held, can instruct his counsel for asking exemption.‑[Exemption from personal appearance].

----S. 540‑A‑Exemption from personal appearance‑Prejudice- Accused choosing to be represented through, counsel‑--‑Complainant not prejudiced‑Possibility of prejudice, if any, is to accused -Complainant cannot be permitted to make such grievance. [Prejudice‑Exemption from personal appearance].

--‑‑S. 540‑A‑Exemption from personal appearance, grant of- Held, within discretion of trial Court.‑[Exemption from personal appearance].

S. M. K. Lodhi for Petitioner.

This may be read in continuation of my order dated 10th June, 1979, passed in Cr. R. No. 409 of 1979, as it prays for the recall of the aforesaid order.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length on the aforesaid date in Cr. R. No. 409 of 1979 and also today. All his arguments today are repetition of his submissions made on 10th June, 1979. The same are summed up as follows:‑‑

(i) That the learned Sessions Court having exercised jurisdiction under section 439‑A, Cr. P. C., the second revision application in this Court was not competent.

(ii) That the exemption was allowed in the absence of the respondent/accused.

2. As for the first submission, I made the observation that there was inherent jurisdiction under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. to correct any' error, which may be thought expedient in the interest of justice and there was no bar to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction by this Court. I thought that the matter was not further pressed with these observations. In any case, that is the legal position as far as the first submission is concerned.

As for the second submission, I am of the view that if an accused has appeared in Court for more than two and a half years and for some reason was stuck up abroad before the next date of hearing, he can well instruct his counsel to ask for exemption of his personal appearances and his case would be covered by the provisions of section 540‑A, Cr. P. C., as this is not a case where the accused has not appeared in the Court at all. This was the only point pressed and I have dealt with it in my order dated 10th June, 1979, in Cr. R. No. 409 of 1979. .

3. If the accused has chosen to defend himself by representation through a counsel (with the permission of the Court) the complainant is not prejudiced in any manner, the possibility of prejudice, if any, is to the accused, and the complainant cannot be permitted to snake grievance of the same.

To exempt the personal presence or not was within the discretion of the learned trial Court, and the learned trial Court lawfully exercised its discretion, therefore, too, the principle of non‑interference in the exercise of discretion by a lower Court should have been followed by the Additional Sessions Judge while dealing with the matter.

There is no other noticeable point made to persuade me to interfere with my order dated 10th June, 1979, passed in Cr. R. No. 409 of 1979.

4. There is no force in this Miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.