Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 688‑Q/BWP of 1984, decided on 16th June, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.205 & 540‑A‑‑Personal attendance, dispensation of‑‑Personal attendance of petitioner sought to be dispensed with on ground of his impending visit to India to see his ailing father‑‑Held: No reasonable ground to show that petitioner was incapable of remaining before trial Court‑‑Interference with orders of Courts below declined, in circum stances.

S. Inayat Ali for Petitioner.

The facts leading up to this petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. briefly, are that on 12‑3‑1984, the State through Assistant Commissioner, Khanpur filed complaint under section 21 and rule 14 (1 and 2) of Sugar Factories Control Act and Rules, 1950. On 13‑3‑1984, Magistrate Ist Class summoned Afsar Hussain Siddiqui and 4 others, the Officers of Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd., Jetha Bhutta, Khanpur for 17‑3‑1984 to face trial. On 25‑3‑1984, the petitioners moved application under sections 205/353 and 540‑A, Cr.P.C. to dispense with their personal attendance. The application was dismissed on 15‑5‑1984. The revision filed by the petitioners also failed on 6‑6‑1984, hence this petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of sections 205 and 540‑A, Cr.P.C. and that he has not taken into account the provisions of section 353, Cr.P.C. and that in any case the personal appearance of Muhammad Ghaus petitioner should have been dispensed with because he has to go to India to see his ailing father.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly interpreted the provisions of section 205/540‑A, Cr.P.C. and that the learned counsel A for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy me that the petitioners are incapable of remaining before the trial Court. As for section 353, Cr.P.C. that, too, is not helpful to the petitioners inasmuch as, the section does not authorise the Court to dispense with the personal attendance and is relatable to the mode of taking evidence in the presence of accused and when his personal attendance is dispensed with in presence of his pleader. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Courts below. The petition is dismissed in limine.

4. Before parting with the judgment I would like to observe that the trial Court on humanitarian grounds would accommodate Muhammad Ghaus petitioner by giving an adjournment of about one month to enable him to see his ailing father.

S . G . D . 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.