A. Sundarapandian. vs State by S.I. of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.C. No. 1183 of 1987 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District, for an offence under S. 160, I.P.C., invokes the inherent powers of this Court to recall the non-bailable warrant issued for his appearance and to issue a direction to the trial court to dispense with his personal appearance and to permit him to appear through his counsel.

It is seen that the petitioner is an advocate practising in Madurai. The non-bailable warrant had been issued by the trial court on the ground that the summons issued for his appearance had been returned unserved with the endorsement that the petitioner refused to receive the same. It is, however, stated that the petitioner bad been away in Madurai in connection with his professional work and had not refused to receive the summons. Therefore, the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner by the trial court is recalled and Crl.M.P. No. 6771 of 1987 is ordered as prayed for.

Regarding the prayer in Crl.M.P. No. 6822 of 1987 no doubt, proceedings are required to be conducted in Criminal Courts in the presence of the accused. But S. 205. Crl.P.C., has been enacted more in the interest of the accused than of the prosecution. Further nowhere does the Code require the presence of an accused person at every hearing during trial. Ss. 205 and 317, Crl.P.C., provide for contingencies where, in the interest of expeditious proceedings in criminal courts, a discretion is given to the trial court to carry on the proceedings in the absence of an accused when the accused himself applies for the same and he is represented by a counsel. The very fact that S. 206, Crl.P.C., has been introduced by the Amending Code, 1973 shows that a liberal use of the above provisions should be made and when the accused himself requires the proceedings to be conducted in his absence. Courts should no hesitate to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused, unless the interest of the prosecution would thereby suffer or under the Code itself the presence of the accused is statutorily required.

In the instant case, the petitioner is an advocate practising in Madurai and to insist on his personal appearance for every hearing before the trial court is not only not necessary but would also cause him inconvenience. In view of the fact that under S. 205, Crl.P.C., a discretion is given to the trial court to dispense with the attendance of the accused, it is appropriate that the trial court should dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner for every hearing and permit him to appear through his counsel except on those days when the trial court feels that his presence is necessary in Court. With this direction, Crl.M.P. No. 6822 of 1987 is ordered.