M SHYAM PRASAD REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-44
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 09,1992

M.SHYAM PRASAD REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANAGER V G PANNEER DAS AND CO. VS. NATARAJA THEVAR [REFERRED TO]
NAGAWWA VS. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI [REFERRED TO]
P VIJAYAPAL REDDY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN SINGH JAIN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
N HANNAMMA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Petitioners are accused in C C No. 207 of 1991 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First class Gudur for the alleged offences under section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 on a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioners filed Criminal MP No. 145 of 1992 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur to dispense with their presence on the ground that all the three petitioners are busily engaged in their vocations and are unable to attend the Court on the various dates of adjournments in the case. The first petitioner claims that he is the proprietor of a reputed film concern The second petitioner is the Chairman of the A P State Film Development Corporation stationed at Hyderabad and is aged about 70 years. The third petitioner is a reputed cine director and has to move from place to place very often.
(2.)The learned Magistrate by his order dated 22-1-92 dismissed the said petition on the ground that an earlier petition filed under Section 205 Cr PC by the petitioners was allowed by his predecessor by directing the petitioners to be present in court on 19-10-1990 and that any order dispensing with the presence of the petitioners will amount to a review of this earlier order of the court.
(3.)The petitioners earlier filed Crl M P No 2215 of 1990, under section 205 (1) Cr P C requesting that their personal appearance may be dispensed with and that they may be permitted to appear through their counsel. The learned Magistrate passed orders dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioners on that day (i e on 7-9-90) and further directing the petitioners to appear in person on the next date of adjournment i e on 19-10-1990. The petitioners sought quashing of the said order in Crl M P No. 1768 of 1990, and this court by judgment dated 13-3-91 dismissed the petition, holding that there was no improper exercise of the discretion on the part of the Magistrate in directing the petitioners to appear on the next date of hearing. It was however observed by this court that the petitioners if so advised, may file an application before the learned Magistrate to dispense with their attendance during the course of the enquiry/ trial under section 317 Cr P C and that the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.