M.L.NARULA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2006-5-76
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on May 15,2006

M.L.Narula Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner M.L. Narula has preferred this petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders impugned dated 30.11.2005, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Cr. Rev.No. 38 of 7005 whereby and whereunder he affirmed the order dated 6.6.2005 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa passed in C/7 Case No. 198 of 1999.
(2.) THE petitioner was prosecuted along with other co -accused under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act, he being the Managing Director of ACC Limited with its cement factory unit at Jhinkpani, Chaibasa. A petition was filed under Sec.205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court below on the ground stated therein that he was the Managing Director at the Head Office, Mumbai controlling as many as 16 cement factories spread over in different states and it was not possible for him to attend the court on each and every date and he undertook to appear in the case whenever required by the court as envisaged under Sub -clause 2 of Sec.205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 31.7.2004 allowed the petition of the petitioner under Section 205(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a condition that he would remain present before the said court at the time of charge, statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and judgment in that case. A petition was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa on 4.4.2005 with the submission that substance of accusation may be allowed to be explained to the advocate of the petitioner for the reasons stated therein, mainly on the ground that he being the Managing Director of ACC Limited was stationed at Mumbai and that he was ready to abide by the condition of the court. A separate petition was filed on 17.5.2005 with the similar prayer almost on similar ground but with the medical certificate that the petitioner was not keeping good health, being his age 65 years and his movement has been restricted under the medical advice for bed rest only with bath room privilege. The medical certificate enclosed with the subsequent petition disclosed his blood pressure as 200/130 on 12.5.2005.
(3.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, vide order impugned dated 6.6.2005 rejected the petitions of the petitioner dated 4.4.2005 and 17.5.2005 on the groundsthat the personal attendance of the petiiioner was dispensed by the order dated 31.7.2004 subject to condition that he must remain present before the said court at the time of charge, statement under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and judgment.;


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