ASHOK BIYANI Vs. SHREE MANUFACTURING CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal revision is filed against the dismissal of Cr1.M,P 484 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga reddy. The order now under challenge is dated 9th March,1990 and it is passed in a petition filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C for dispensing with the presence of the petitioners-accused.

(2.) A perusal of the record / reveals that the accused never appeared before the Court and even without making the first appearance they have come forward with the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The petition filed before the trial Court does not give any justification for their seeking relief without making the first appearance. Except stating that they are residents of Bombay and that they would be forced to incur a lot of expenditure to appear in the Court at Sangareddy, no other ground is urged. It is true that Section 205 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision which permits the Court to dispense with the presence of the accused. But it should be remembered that the Court will have to exercise its discretion bearing in mind the facts of each case. The present case is one which involves misappropriation of huge amount of eight lakhs and odd. In such circumstances, the trial Court is perfectly justified in dismissing this petition filed on 9- 3-1990 under Section 205 Cr.P.C. I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Magistrate.

(3.) Petitioners' counsel informs me that subsequently accused had entered appearance and physically appeared in Court. We do not have any material on record to support this plea, as far as this Court is concerned, it is only concerned with the petition filed on 9-3-1990 and the order passed on that day. Considering the circumstances also, I do not think that it is proper to dispense with the presence of the accused for the first hearing. After the accused appear in the Court, it is open to them to seek relief under Section 205 Cr.P.C.