Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 1983, decided on 1st February, 1983.
----Ss. 205, 540-A & 353 read with S. 561-A-Exemption from per sonal appearance of accused-Besides Ss. 205 & 540-A, provisions of S. 353, Cr. P. C., held, also available to trial Court in granting exemption to accused from personal attendance--Application for exemption from personal appearance, held further, to be heard on merits after giving full opportunity to counsel for applicant to argue such application.
1972 P Cr. L J 951 ref.
Sabir Ansari for Appellant.
Hussain Adil for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 1st February, 1983.
The applicant has filed the above petition for grant of exemption from personal appearance before the learned trial Court, as applicant's applica tion in this connection has bean rejected by the learned trial Court as well as by Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi in a Revision Petition filed by the applicant. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that beside the provisions of sections 205 and 540-A, Cr. P. C. Provisions of section 353, Cr. P. C. were also available to the learned trial Court, for granting exemp tion from personal appearance to the applicant, but this was not considered by both the Parried lower Courts.
2. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted, that orders of both the learned lower Courts are in accordance with law and since the applicant did not produce even medical certificate, the same ought not to be interfered in this extraordinary jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the State submitted, that the above petition was not maintainable and furthermore the orders of learned lower Courts are in accordance with law.
4. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and do not find any illegality and or material irregularity in both the impugned orders and as such I dismiss the above petition.
5. However since the learned Advocate for the applicant has made submission at bar, that the applicant was not given proper opportunity by the learned trial Court to produce medical certificates and argue the matter. I would direct the learned trial Court, that if applicant moves a fresh appli cation for exemption from personal appearance, the same may be heard on merits, after giving full opportunity to the learned Advocate for the appli cant to argue such application. I may also mention, that besides the A sections 205 and 540-A, Cr.P.C. the provisions of sections 353, Cr. P. C. are also available to the learned Magistrate for grant of exemption, fit cases, on merits to the accused persons, in view of the judgment of this Court reported in 1972 P Cr. L J 951 and as such while disposing, of any fresh application, that may be moved by the applicant, the learned trial Court should keep this in mind.
6. The above main petition stands dismissed in the terms of the above order as with the consent of the learned Advocates before me, I have taken up the above main petition, alongwith application in question for regular hearing today, as only short point was involved in this case.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer