Disposed¶28

E.Sankar Rao v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC7 Aug 2024CRLMC/456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMC No.456 of 2024, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 07.08.2024 (A.K. Mohapatra, J.). Keywords: Section 205 Cr.P.C.; Section 317 Cr.P.C.; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; dispensation of personal appearance; vigilance trial; G.R. (V) Case No.33 of 2016(v); Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur; petitioner posted at Bhadrak; disposed with liberty to move Section 317 Cr.P.C. application; trial court to consider in accordance with law and accommodate upon sufficient cause. No precedent cases cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. whenever attendance before the trial court is difficult; the learned trial court to consider such application in accordance with law and accommodate the petitioner if sufficient cause is shown for non-appearance.

E.Sankar Rao Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.456 of 2024

E.sankar Rao

.....

Petitioner

Represented By Adv. – Bishnu Prasad Pradhan

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State Of Odisha

¶8

.....

¶9

Opp.Party

¶10

Represented By Adv. – N.Moharana, ASC for Vig. Dept.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

07.08.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶18

A memo of appearance in favour of Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, the learned counsel is filed in Court today to plead for the Petitioner, which is kept on record.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.S.C. for the Vigilance Dept. Perused the 482 Cr.P.C. application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶20

Being aggrieved by rejection of his application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶21

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a vigilance case pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in G.R. (V) Case No.33 of 2016(v), the petitioner is required to appear before

¶22

Page 1 of 3 .

¶23

the Vigilance Court on each and every date fixed. It is further contended that the petitioner is in government service and at the moment he is posted at Bhadrak. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed the difficulties of the petitioner in traveling from Bhadrak to Berhampur on each and every date. He further contended that the entire case is based on documentary evidence therefore, presence of the petitioner is not required during the trial. As such, an application was filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to dispense with his personal appearance for the trial, however, the same has been rejected by the learned trial court without appreciating the same in its proper prospective.

¶24

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Dept. on the other hand contended that Section 205 Cr.P.C. deals with the dispensation of the appearance of the petitioner for the entire trial which may lead to delay in conclusion of the trial. He further contended that there exists a provision in the shape of Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. under which the petitioner can seek a more appropriate remedy. In the event there is any difficulty in appearing before the trial court the same may be considered in accordance with law.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the application by granting liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. in the event the petitioner finds it difficult, for any reason, to appear before the court on the date fixed. In such eventuality, the learned trial court shall consider the same in accordance with law and try to accommodate the petitioner in the event any sufficient cause is shown for his non-appearance before the court.

¶26