Allowed

S.Unnamalai v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Mar 2014CRL RC/1302/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision allowing dispensation with personal appearance of an accused suffering from liver infection (HCV), setting aside the impugned order. The petitioner is permitted to represent the case through counsel subject to appearing if required.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision allowed; impugned order set aside; personal appearance dispensed for future hearings; petitioner permitted to represent case through counsel.

S.Unnamalai Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.03.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

Crl.R.C.No.1302 of 2013

¶6

S.Unnamalai .. Petitioner/Accused - 3

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State represented by the Inspector of Police EOW.II, Chennai. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶9

Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in CC.No.4670 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and to set aside the order dated 3.9.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.5484 of 2011 in CC.No.4670 of 2006 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶10

The petitioner /wife/A3 is now before this court challenging the order, rejecting her petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C to dispense with her personal appearance for the future hearings and to permit her to conduct the case through her learned counsel on record.

¶11

2.The only reason mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of this criminal revision is that he has been suffering from HCV infection in liver and has been undergoing treatment and has been physically unable to appear before the court concerned. The petition for dispensing with her appearance was rejected mainly by relying on her conduct of non-appearance before the court concerned on various dates, even after declaring her as proclaimed offender.

¶12

3.Heard both sides.

¶13

4.The fact that she has been suffering from HCV infection in liver is not seriously denied. It is needless to say that the petitioner has been undergoing treatment, on account of her illness and the nature of the treatment required to be taken by her is serious and she cannot move around as before, because of her ailment.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

The petitioner has now come forward with the present petition for dispensing with her personal appearance before the trial court. The trial court, having regard to the nature of her illness, ought to have considered her request sympathetically and failure to do so has resulted in erroneous order, rejecting her petition.

¶16

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the course of his argument before this court, has submitted that the petitioner is willing to appear before the Court concerned as and when required during trial and she also filed an affidavit of undertaking dated 3.11.2013 to that effect. This Court, on the basis of the same, is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner for future hearings.

¶17

6.In the result, this criminal revision is allowed by setting aside the order dated 3.9.2013 made in Crl.M.P.No.5484/2011 in CC.No.4670 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The personal appearance of the petitioner for future hearings is dispensed with and the petitioner is permitted to represent the case through her learned counsel on record. The petitioner is directed to appear before the court concerned as and when required during trial and on her failure to do so for single hearing, her petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C shall stand dismissed automatically.

¶18

Sd/
Asst.Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub.Asst.Registrar
rk
To
1.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, EOW.II, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Vivekananthan,Advocate, SR. No.11256/14
Crl.R.C.No.1302 of 2013
pk(co)
pmk.18.3.2014

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Unnamalai v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Unnamalai v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chinnappan Vs the District Adi Dravidar

R. Kanagaraj Vs the Block Development

K.Balasubramanian Vs the District Collector

T.John Bose Vs State Bank of India

K.Arunagiri Vs the Dist. Adhi Dravidar and

G.Rajagopal Vs Subha Shree Finance Corporatio