AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Monoranjan Mallick, J.—The present petitioners have moved this court in revision being aggrieved by the order dated January 4, 1986, by which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the prayer of the present petitioners for exemption from examination u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issuing a warrant of arrest.
The petitioners who are accused in Case No. C/1832 of 1980 u/s 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta, after the close of the evidence for the prosecution, filed the application in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for dispensing with the examination u/s 313(1) of the Code on the ground that during the whole trial, the petitioners were exempted from their personal appearance u/s 205 of the Code. The learned Magistrate rejected their prayer and issued warrant of arrest against, them.
Being aggrieved, the present petitioners have filed this revision application contending, inter alia, that the learned Magistrate having allowed the present petitioners'' prayer to be represented by their advocate u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have dispensed with their examination u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, after the close of the prosecution evidence when the present petitioners themselves prayed for dispensing with their examination.
In support, a decision of this court in Ramacast Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies [1986] 3 Crimes has been cited where a single judge of this court has held that where in a summons case, the court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination u/s 313(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code if there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.
The present petitioners are being prosecuted u/s 162 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case referred to above is also a case u/s 162 of the said Act. The learned single judge in the said decision has held that though the learned Magistrate in the circumstances of the case, had permitted the personal exemption of the accused u/s 205 of the Code, he failed to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law by not granting them the exemption from being examined. u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In this particular case, I do not find any reason whatsoever as to why the learned Magistrate rejected the application. He did not assign any reason. He did not indicate that there was any incriminating evidence against the petitioners, which needed examination u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code. I also do not find that on behalf of the opposite party any objection was raised against the said prayer. In these circumstances, regard being had that the case is one u/s 162 of the Companies Act and in view of the fact that the petitioners were exempted from personal appearance u/s 204 of the Code, the learned Magistrate did not exercise his jurisdiction properly by rejecting the said application without assigning any reason whatsoever.
I therefore allow the revision petition and direct that the learned Magistrate shall allow the petitioners'' application for exemption and thereafter dispose of the case as quickly as possible.
Learned advocate for the petitioners has raised other legal points against the prosecution. The present petitioners are directed to urge those points before the learned Magistrate at the time of argument.
The revision petition is thus allowed.