2019 (12) TMI 1624 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of prayer of the Appellant for dispensation with his personal appearance/attendance in a case that pertains to the charge-sheet - offences punishable Under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420 409 Indian Penal Code and Sections 9 12 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT - At the outset it is required to be noted that the Appellant is required to appear before the learned Trial Court on every Friday and the Appellant as such is appearing before the learned Trial Court on each and every Friday since 2013. Nothing is on record that at any point of time the Appellant has tried to delay the trial. The Appellant is represented through his counsel. The Appellant is a permanent resident of Delhi. He is the Director on the Boards of several companies. The distance between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1500 kms. Therefore the Appellant sought for exemption from personal appearance before the learned Trial Court on each and every Friday and submitted the application Under Section 205 Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that on all dates of adjournments his counsel Sri Bharadwaj Reddy shall appear and no adjournment shall be asked for on his behalf. In the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. 2001 (8) TMI 1407 - SUPREME COURT this Court has observed that if a Court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the personal attendance of an Accused before it need not be insisted on then the court has the power to dispense with the attendance of the Accused. It is further observed by this Court in the aforesaid decision that if a court feels that insisting on the personal attendance of an Accused in a peculiar case would be too harsh on account of a variety of reasons the court can grant relief to such an Accused in the matter of facing the prosecution proceedings. It is observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the normal Rule is that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of the Accused. However even in the absence of the Accused such evidence can be taken but then his counsel must be present in the court provided he has been granted exemption from attending the court. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as that of the learned Trial Court rejecting the application submitted by the Appellant Under Section 205 Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dispensation of personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Grounds for granting exemption from personal appearance.
3. Comparison with similar cases and previous judgments.
4. Conditions for granting exemption to ensure trial progress.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dispensation of Personal Appearance Under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellant, Accused No. 3 in the case pertaining to the charge-sheet bearing C.C. No. 12 of 2013, sought exemption from personal appearance before the Trial Court on every Friday, citing business commitments and the inconvenience of traveling from Delhi to Hyderabad. The application was initially dismissed by the Trial Court and subsequently by the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

2. Grounds for Granting Exemption from Personal Appearance:
The appellant argued that his continuous presence since 2013 and the prolonged nature of the trial due to multiple charge-sheets justified the exemption. He offered to file an undertaking ensuring that his absence would not hinder the trial proceedings and that his counsel would represent him. The respondent-CBI opposed the application, stating that business commitments and inconvenience were not valid grounds for exemption, especially considering the seriousness of the charges.

3. Comparison with Similar Cases and Previous Judgments:
The appellant cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401 and Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608, where exemptions were granted under Section 205 CrPC. The Court in these cases emphasized that personal attendance could be dispensed with if it was in the interest of justice and did not impede the trial. The respondent-CBI contended that these precedents were not applicable due to the graveness of the present case's charges.

4. Conditions for Granting Exemption to Ensure Trial Progress:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's continuous presence since 2013 and noted that there was no record of attempts to delay the trial. The Court referred to the principles established in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. and applied them to the present case, emphasizing that the exemption could be granted with conditions to safeguard the trial's progress. The conditions included:
- An undertaking by the appellant not to dispute his identity and to ensure his counsel's presence.
- The appellant's appearance for the framing of charges and other critical hearings as required by the Trial Court.
- The Trial Court's discretion to revoke the exemption if the appellant or his counsel failed to comply or attempted to delay the trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court and Trial Court's orders. The appellant's application for exemption from personal appearance was granted with specific conditions to ensure the trial's progress and integrity. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.