DAYANIDHI ROUT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners & Learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the records.... Order Dated 26.04.2010 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in C.T. No. 172 of 2009 rejecting the Petitioners' application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. is assailed in this' application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The impugned order shows that cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 341/323/294/347/ 379/354/506/34 of the I.P.C. & the Petitioners, who are the accused persons, are released, on bail by surrendering before the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in BLAPL No. 9902 of 2009. The Petitioners filed an application under-Section 205, Cr.P.C. before the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore for dispensing with their personal appearance in Court, which has been rejected on the ground that the offences involved moral turpitude.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners are residing at a distance of 50 to 60 Kms from the Court of the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore & that keeping in view the minor nature of offences a liberal view should be taken & the personal appearance of the Petitioners be exempted under Section 205, Cr.P.C. It is also his submission that some of the accused persons are ladies, whose appearance in Court on all the dates should not be insisted upon. He also submits that identity of the accused persons (Petitioners) is not in question & that the prosecution arises out of civil dispute & that exemption of the Petitioners from personal appearance will not affect the trial.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that personal appearance of accused persons is the normal rule & exemption is an exception which would be granted only if there are compelling circumstances, such as where the accused persons are old & infirm persons or women, & that the offences are not very serious in nature.