Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2107 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking to dispense with his appearance permitting his counsel Sri Bharadwaj Reddy - offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. read with 420 of I.P.C. and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act - Whether the appearance of the petitioner on all dates of adjournments in C.C.No.12 of 2013 be dispensed with, permitting his authorised advocate Bharadwaj Reddy to appear on his behalf permanently on all the dates of hearing of the case on the ground that he is a Director of various companies and that he is facing financial difficulty besides loss of man hours? HELD THAT:- The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In HAMIDA VERSUS RASHID AND ORS. [2007 (4) TMI 768 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court held that it is well established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. The order passed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. is purely within the discretion of Magistrate/Judge here, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases being the Master of the proceedings in his Court exercised his discretion and declined the request of the petitioner. In Sushila Devi and Jagadguru Sachidanada Shankarabharati Swami of Sri Kudli Sringeri Mutt case (referred supra) it is held that the next test will be a question of status; highly placed public functionaries, or very busy captains of industry and the like should not, unless the prima facie case is serious, be compelled to attend. If these principles are applied to the present facts of the case, though the petitioner is busy industrialist, who intend to establish another industry in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh by illegal means i.e. allegedly paying approximately Rs.139 crores for transfer of prospecting license. Therefore, his pre-occupation in the affairs of various companies or industries is not a ground in view of the seriousness of the case involving more than Rs.100 crores for granting largesse by the Government i.e. transfer of prospecting licence by M/s Raghuram Cements Limited, in violation of settled guidelines for such transfer. When the petitioner allegedly resorted to such practice to establish an industry, the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases exercised his discretion to negate the relief. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the direction for taking up the matter on every Friday, he can challenge the order passed by this Court in PIL No.145 of 2015 in appropriate proceedings. But to overcome difficulty in appearance, on account of direction issued by this Court, the petitioner cannot resort to procedure under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. - there are no illegality in the discretion exercised by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases warranting interference of this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. since this Court cannot regulate or issue any direction to the subordinate Courts in passing discretionary orders, which purely lies on the Magistrate or the Judge, who is exercising power of the Magistrate under special enactment. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
|