RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 230 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara facing charge for offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner who is working in Rajasthan was granted bail by the learned Magistrate on 29.05.2010 and he was exempted from appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") as per order dated 31.5.2010. Petitioner was being represented by his counsel in the subsequent postings. On 22.12.2010 counsel was not present and thereon learned Magistrate cancelled exemption as well as bail granted to the Petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant to him. Steps were also initiated under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code and the case was posted to 22.2.2011. That order is under challenge.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor who took notice for Respondent. Learned Counsel contends that since exemption under Section 205 of the Code had been granted to the Petitioner it was not legal or proper to cancel the said order without directing Petitioner to appear in Court. It is also argued that initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 was not warranted and at any rate it was not legal to initiate steps under the said provisions simultaneously.

(3.) So far as the first limb of argument is concerned, I find myself unable to give my assent to it. Section 205(2) of the Code states that the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may in his discretion at any stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of the accused and if necessary "enforce such attendance in the manner herein before provided." That provision according to the learned Counsel required learned Magistrate to issue summons to the Petitioner after cancellation of the order granting exemption under Section 205 of the Code. That argument cannot be accepted since what is referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section 205 is not directing attendance of accused by way of issue of summons after cancellation of exemption granted under Section 205 of the Code. There may be contingencies even when the order under Section 205 of the Code is in force, for e.g., attendance of accused is necessary for examination under Section 313 of the Code or identification by witnesses. Sub-section (2) of Section 205 of the Code takes care of such situations.