AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
The revisional application has been preferred against the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with Criminal Revision No. 414 of 2010 wherein the learned revisional Court was pleased to affirm the order dated 03.06.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South 24 Parganas at Alipore in Case No. C-7387 of 2007.
The subject matter of grievance of the petitioners are that despite their applications under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being allowed, thereby dispensing their appearances from the day to day proceeding in the Court yet they have been directed to appear before the Court at the time of examination under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the order dated 03.06.2010 is not available with the records, it is not clear to this Court as to whether there was a condition imposed at the time of their personal appearances being dispensed with.
Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relies upon S.P. Sinha and Ors. vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) reported in 1976 CRI. L.J. 76; S.R. Jhunjhunwalla vs. B.N. Poddar and Anr. reported in 1988 CRI. L. J. 51; Vivek Bajoria and Anr. vs. State and Anr. reported in (2008) 3 CHN 809 and tries to impress upon this Court that the presence of the petitioners are not warranted at the stage of examination of the accused under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 is unable to satisfy this Court as to the requirement of the petitioners at the stage of examination under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Having due regard to the fact that the present case is exclusively based on documents and the physical identification of the petitioners are not necessary and the procedure to be followed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is relating to the provisions of trial of summons cases , I think that the further progress of the trial should not be stalled.
Accordingly the petitioners are directed to file an undertaking by way of an affidavit contending that they will not be prejudiced if the examination under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded through their learned lawyers and in their absence, they would further state on oath that they will not raise this issue before any higher forum in appeal or revision that as the examination under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were conducted in their absence and through their lawyers they were unable to understand the proceeding taking place in the learned Court below. If the petitioners by filing such affidavit before the learned Court below pray for their examination through their learned lawyers, the learned Court should not insist on their personal / physical appearances on the date of examination under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
With the aforesaid observations, C.R.R. 2159 of 2012 along the application being C.R.A.N. 1337 of 2019 are disposed of.