Allowed

Madhusudan Sahu v. State

Orissa HC19 Jul 2017CRLMC/1456/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque dishonour trial, the High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to allow a maintenance of surety application, directing the trial court to dispense with the petitioner's personal attendance under Section 205(2) CrPC due to lack of serious offence and absence of germane reason for non-attendance.

What did the court decide?

The trial court directed to dispense with the petitioner's personal attendance under Section 205(2) CrPC within fifteen days; non-bailable warrant stayed until then.

The petitioner has filed this CRLMC under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. c hallenging the order dated 27.04.2010 rejecting his application under Section 205 of the Cr.P. C. for dispensing with his personal attendance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in I .C.C. Case No.183 of 2008.

It appears that the petitioner being indicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act filed a petition under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal a ttendance which was rejected and N.B.W. was issued against the petitioner. After issuance of t he N.B.W., petition filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for dispensing wi th his personal attendance was also rejected vide the impugned order.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was not properly instructed by the concerned Advocate, the petitioner could not tak e any step for his appearance and as such in such circumstances the court concerned could not have issued N.B.W. against him. Thereafter, also the court concerned without assigning any rea son has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for his personal attendance.

As it appears the offence is not serious in nature. Nothing is there t o indicate that the personal attendance of the petitioner is required for a fair trial or the trial of the case shall be hampered in the absence of the petitioner-accused. In such premises , when no useful purpose is going to be served by securing the personal attendance of the peti tioner-accused in the trial, the trial court ought not have refused to allow the petition made by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance t hat too without assigning any reason much less any germane reason.

Accordingly, this CRLMC stands allowed. The trial court shall do well to dispense with the personal attendance of the petitioner by stipulating such condition in te rms of Section 205 (2) of the Cr.P.C. as deemed fit and proper within fifteen days of receipt of certified copy of this order or communication of this order whichever is earlier. However, till then N.B.W. issued against the petitioner shall not be e xecuted against the petitioner. This CRLMC stands disposed of being allowed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. .. S.Pujahari, J.

Madhusudan Sahu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Sahu v. State

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

Sagar Maharana Vs State of Orissa

Hindustan Coca-Cola Vs State

Santatan @Paritosh Vs State

Srikrishna Agrawal Vs Lundbeck India Pvt.

Srikrishna Agarwal Vs Lundbeck India Pvt.

Madan M.Simulu Vs State