- (1.) Heard the parties. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 2-3-2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 373 of 2003. The petitioners are cited as accused and are facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 469, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, besides offence under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. By the order impugned, the learned Court below had refused to extend protection to the petitioners under Section 205, Cr.P.C.
(2.) The petitioners had filed their application for exemption of personal appearance in this case under Section 205, Cr. P. C. on the ground that they being employed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Executive Director of Pharmaceutical Company, namely, M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd., they have been made accused in this case for alleged acts, which they have not committed, since they being high officials of the Company, they have no direct involvement in the day-to-day business of the Company and further, that both the petitioners by virtue of their office, are stationed at Company's Headquarters at Bombay and they are also required to undertake business trips not only within India but also outside the country and as such it would be extremely inconvenient and prejudicial to their interest, if exemption for personal appearance is not granted to the petitioners.
(3.) The learned Court below refused the prayer of the petitior fers on the ground that the petitioners have not made out any justifiable reason to treat them separately when a provision of Section 317, Cr.P.C. is always available to them Tor being represented by their lawyer instead of putting in their personal appearance on each date. The learned Court below had felt that "equality before law being a sacrosanct principle of our Constitution, it should not be diluted by giving 'carte blanche' to any higher functionary to be above law". Assailing the impugned order, Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned Court below has totally misconceived the scope and purpose of Section 205, Cr. P. C. and has further failed to appreciate the special grounds advanced by the petitioners in support of their prayer. Explaining the circumstances, learned counsel submits that admittedly both the petitioners are high ranking executives of the Company and they are stationed at the Headquarters of the Company within the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai and by virtue of their office, both the petitioners need to undertake frequent business trips to various places. Learned counsel explains that the petitioners are sought to be made responsible by way of vicarious liability for some medicines marketed through the marketing division of their Company, though neither of the petitioners are concerned with the Company's marketing section nor were they directly involved in supply of medicines to the complainant. Learned counsel adds that on considering the merits of the case the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail and thereafter they had appeared before the Court below. Learned counsel explains that even though cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 468 & 469 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, against the petitioners, but none of the offences are applicable to the petitioners. Yet, the petitioners are prepared to face trial and the only concession they had prayed for was to extend the protection under Section 205, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel explains that this Court on proposal under Section 205, Cr. P. C. is not limited and confined only to cases of petty offences or summons at the trial of the cases, but in appropriate cases even if the offences are triable, the discretion may be exercised in favour of the accused under Section 205, Cr. P. C. To buttress her argument, learned counsel refers to the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Shantanu Kumar Das and others v. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 134; and the judgment in the case of Prabhat Ranjan v. State of Bihar, reported in 2004(3) BCCR and also the judgment passed in Amar Nath Jha v. State of Bihar & Ann, reported in (2005) 4 SCC.;