SHYAM PRASAD REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused in C.C. 166/90 in the court of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gudur. That case was instituted on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence u/S. 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 issued summons for the appearance of the accused on 7-9-1990. On that day the accused filed a petition Crl.M.P.2215/90 before the learned Magistrate u/S. 205(1), Cr.P.C. requesting that their personal appearance may be dispensed with and they may be permitted to appear through their counsel as they are busy persons moving about various places in connection with their business. The learned Magistrate passed orders dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused on that day but directed the accused to appear in person on the next day of hearing on 19-10-90. The petitioners have filed this petition u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.2215/90 in so far as it directed them to appear on the next hearing date 19-10-1990.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are film producer and film director and are busy in connection with their film shooting and so it will be difficult for them to attend the Magistrates Court and therefore contended that the learned Magistrate should have passed a blanket order dispensing with their personal attendance throughout the trial of the case. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate did not exercise his discretion properly in directing the petitioners to appear in the trial court on 19-10-90 and therefore requested that the High Court may exercise its inherent power u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. and pass an order dispensing with the presence of the accused throughout the trial of the case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent i.e., the complainant has urged that u/S. 205, Cr.P.C. the discretion is vested in the trial court to dispense with the presence of the accused and when the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion and dispensed with their presence on the condition that they should appear on the next date of hearing, it cannot be held to be an improper exercise of the discretion and the High Court should not impose its own discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court.