SHASHI KUMAR PARAVATHANEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A. Nos.13986/2014 & 13987/2014

(2.) This matter has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner impugning the order passed by the trial court on 01.05.2014, whereby an application seeking exemption from personal appearance moved on behalf of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Metropolitan Magistrate is, "not satisfied with the contents mentioned in the application", and thereafter, proceeded to direct issuance of non bailable warrants for the arrest and production of Shashi Kumar Parvathaneni, the petitioner herein. Notice was also issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner's surety for the same date.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner had moved that application pointing out that he is working as a Senior Consultant at Sintel Company, Chennai; and that his employer has refused leave to attend the court because of the heavy workload of the company; and therefore, he may be exempted from personal appearance on 01.05.2014. In the application, it was also stated that the petitioner would be represented by counsel on that date, and that he would not impugn any proceedings held on that date ou the ground that the same were conducted in his absence. In support, counsel for the petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Pratap Singh Gaekwad & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2003 2 ILR(Del) 428, for the proposition that the rejection of an application for exemption is not a ground for the issuance, inter alia, of non bailable warrants or notice to the surety.