Quashed

Pradip Behera @ Padia v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC30 Nov 2021CRLMC/960/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner-accused's petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with personal attendance. The Court held that the lower court's two-line order was unsustainable as it failed to provide reasons, opposing the settled legal position that such prayers must be considered with valid justification to allow the accused to remain out of station.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 04.01.2020 and direction to the lower court to pass orders dispensing with personal attendance.

Pradip Behera @ Padia Vs State of Odisha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 960 of 2020

¶3

Pradip Behera @ Padia …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.K. Nayak, Advocate

¶5

-Versus -

¶6

State of Odisha

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. P. Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶10

ORDER_ 30.11.2021

¶11

Order No.

¶12

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 04.01.2020 passed by learned J.M.F.C., Nimapara in G.R. Case No. 429 (A) of 2016, whereby the petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner is a driver and is required to remain out of station frequently and as such, it is not possible on his part to appear before the court on each date of posting of the case. On such ground the petition was filed by the petitioner-accused in the court below which is enclosed as Annexure-2. The petition was considered and rejected vide order dated 04.01.2020, which is impugned in the present application. It is further submitted that learned court below has not considered the grounds urged by the petitioner and has rejected the application without citing any reason.

¶17

Page 1 of 1

¶18

Learned Addl. Standing Counsel fairly submits that the order does not disclose any reasons for rejection of the petition.

¶19

It goes without saying that reason is the heartbeat of a judicial order and it is incumbent upon the court to ascribe sufficient reasons to justify the order passed. In the instant case, the petitioner had in his application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., specifically mentioned that he is a driver by profession and remains out of station frequently and therefore it is not possible on his part to attend the court regularly. Learned court below rejected the petition by a two-line order simply mentioning that after consideration of the fact, circumstances, nature of offence, he is not inclined to allow the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C..

¶20

Section 205 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused for valid and justified reasons. Of course, sub-section (2) thereof also empowers the Court to require the personal attendance of the Court whenever required.

¶21

Having regard to the settled position of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd ., reported in (2001) 7 SCC401: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254, the court can allow such prayer for dispensing with personal attendance subject to the condition that the accused shall not dispute his identity and shall attend the court whenever so directed.

¶22

Page 2 of 2

¶23

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence the same is quashed. The learned Court below is directed to pass necessary orders to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C.

¶24

CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶26

A.K. Rana

¶27

( Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Pradip Behera @ Padia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Behera @ Padia v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lebe Majhi @ Lebe @ Bejne Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Udayabhanu Singh Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kr. Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Bighnay Kumar Jethi Vs State of Odisha

Muna@Pallash Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rakesh Tiwari Vs State of Odisha