CHANDRAMAULI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by Shri Rajender Kumar, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC - No. 30/2006, whereby the application of the petitioners for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 and 317 of the Cr.P.C., till such time the Court directs their appearance at a subsequent stage, has been rejected. This application was rejected on the ground that merely because the petitioner, who happens to be an accused before the trial court, is an advocate, or an agriculturist, or a businessman, and has to travel a distance of about 1100 k.m. on each hearing, cannot in itself be a ground for permanent exemption for appearance in the trial. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the fact that in the application itself, which was moved before the Trial Court, the petitioners have pointed out that they have not been disputing their identity and, therefore, the proceedings before the Trial Court would not be hampered on any such ground. At the same time, they had also consented to the entire cross -examination and evidence being recorded in their absence. They also gave an undertaking to the effect that whenever their appearance would be required by the Court, they will present themselves before the Court.

(2.) IT is well known that in criminal proceedings, the accused persons have a right to be present during the trial to defend themselves either in person or through a counsel of their choice. This right has passed through many perils during the course of history. Tracing the history of this right of representation, the Supreme Court of United States in Faretta v. Cal., 422 U.S. 806 observed:

(3.) IN the same context, their Lordships of the judicial Committee in the case of Basil Ranger Lawrance v. Emperor : AIR 1933 PC 218 said: