CHOCKALINGAM Vs. SWASTIK FILAMENTS PVT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above Crl.O.Ps have been filed by the same petitioner. The first Crl.O.P.No.1969 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records relating to Crl.M.P.No.5281 of 2002 in C.C.No.4153 of 2002 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and set aside the order dated 15.11.2002 made by the said Court. The second Crl.O.P.No.1975 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner praying to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.5282 of 2002 in C.C.No.3431 of 2002 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and set aside the order dated 15.11.2002 made by the said Court.

(2.) The petitioner in both the C.C.Nos.4153 of 2002 and 3431 of 2002 has filed applications before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.5281 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.5282 under Section 205 Cr.P.C on certain grounds such as, that he is a business man dealing in fish-nets at Peravurani, Tanjavur District besides being an agriculturist; that both the business require his personal attention at his native place Peravurani, and the petitioner's absence even for a day may result in loss and hardship in the business which would become irrepairable; that the petitioner has already lost his main crop and now he is solely dependent on the short term crop; that his native place is deviated from Chennai by 400 kms and for showing his appearance in both the above cases on each and every hearing, it is not that much easy and therefore would pray that his personal attendance may be dispensed with and to appear before the Court by his plead.

(3.) The trial Court without having any discussion on the hardships raised on the part of the petitioner, simply stating that unless the petitioner appears in person for each and every hearing, the case could be disposed of at the earliest and in case, he is not able to appear before the Court for any reason, he could file applications under Section 317 Cr.P.C and on such grounds, would dismiss the applications filed in both cases as a result of which the petitioner has come forward to file both the above Crl.O.Ps on certain grounds as pleaded in his grounds of the above Crl.O.P.