USHA MAROTIRAO NIMBALKAR Vs. MOTIRAM SHIVRAM UJJAINKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] RULE. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(3.) The initial application made by the applicants for permanent exemption was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 22. 12. 2006 amongst other on the count of presence of the applicants being essential for a fair trial. The second application with the same prayer was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 3. 3. 2007 on the count of the previous application for such a prayer being already rejected and there being no provision for recalling the said order. The application in revision preferred by the applicants against the order dated 3. 3. 2007 was dismissed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Akola vide order dated 4. 9. 2008. The challenge has been thrown to all the said orders by present application. The application is vehemently opposed by the non-applicant no. 1.

(4.) On the aforesaid backdrop and even accepting that the provisions of taking the evidence and the other proceedings at trial in presence of the accused is a provision in reality meant for benefit of the accused or unnecessary insistence for personal presence of the accused resulting him undue hardship is unwarranted as provision of Section 317 of code of Criminal Procedure itself confers a discretion upon the trial Court of dispensing personal attendance of the accused in appropriate cases, still it cannot be gainsaid that every accused as a matter of right can seek an exemption at a trial or at least in a trial for commission of serious offences.