N HANNAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 120/78 on the file of the First Class, Magistrate Proddatur. She filed Cr. M.P. No. 412 of 1978 to dispense with her personal appearance during the trial THE learned Magistrate dismissed that application. Hence this revision.

(2.) MR. Babulu Reddy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner brings to my notice the provisions of section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and contends that the trial Court has not at all exercised its discretion in a judicious manner. The petitioner is admittedly running three schools and two hostels, and has further activities being a social worker. Therefore, it is very difficult for the petitioner to be at Proddatur at every stage of the proceedings. Therefore, she filed the application for exemption from personal appearance. I am of the opinion that invariably the High Cour , does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court, but this is a case where the lower court has not exercised its discretion in a judicious manner. The petitioner has been specifically pointing out as to why she is asking for dispensing with her personal appearance i.e., on the ground that she is running three institutions and two hostels and she has other activities being a social worker and, therefore, it would be difficult for her to be present in person in the court on every date of hearing. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 205 Cr. P.C. personal appearance of the petitioner should be dispensed witb and is hereby dispensed with. I am fortified in my view by a judgment of Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhagvandas vs. State where it is held;