SUSHIL KUMAR MODI Vs. MOHAN GURUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein filed a complaint No. 855/1/2004 against the petitioner and some other persons under Sections 500/501, IPC. The allegations are that the petitioner had made certain defamatory remarks against the respondent during the period when Legislative Assembly elections for the State of Bihar were underway in the year 2004. The other accused persons had tendered apology and in view thereof the respondent herein has dropped them from the proceedings and proceedings are pending only against the petitioner herein. After recording pre-summoning evidence, the learned MM having been satisfied that prima facie case was made out, issued summons to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto petitioner appeared in the Court and was granted bail.

(2.) The case is at the stage where notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. is to be framed. The petitioner on earlier occasion had asked for exemption from personal appearance for particular dates and was granted exemption. Thereafter he filed application seeking general exemption from appearance and wanted to be represented through Counsel. This application was considered by the learned MM and vide order dated 6.6.2006, learned MM rejected the said application and has issued bailable warrants against him. Challenging this order, present petition has been filed.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he is presently discharging public functions as Deputy Chief Minister in the State of Bihar and is having portfolio of Finance Minister. In that capacity he has to perform important public functions at Patna and due to his responsibilities and requirement of personal presence of the petitioner in this case shall adversely affect his public duties and would cause substantial hardships. It is further stated that he is a permanent resident of Patna in the State of Bihar and, therefore, it is not convenient for him to come to Delhi. In the application filed before the learned MM it was also stated that he would be represented through Counsel. Names of Advocates were given in the application. The petitioner had also undertaken that he would not dispute his identity in the case and that a Counsel in his behalf would be present in the Court on all dates of hearing and further that he has no objection if Court takes evidence in his absence. While rejecting the request of the petitioner herein the learned MM, inter alia, observed as under: