ROBIN PAUL Vs. G K ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been facing his trial for an offence punishable under Sections 14(1-B)/14A(1) of the Provident Fund Act before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. The said case was instituted in the year 2001 and at the stage of examination of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he moved an application seeking exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for examination thereunder through his learned lawyer on the ground of his illness. However, the Learned Magistrate rejected his such application, hence this criminal revision.

(2.) Both the learned advocates appeared on behalf of the petitioner as well for the State were present in Court, but none appeared on behalf of Provident Fund Authority, although notice was duly served.

(3.) It is true the case in connection with which the petitioner is seeking exemption at the stage of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to a case punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend upto 3 years and is a warrant case and not a summons case. Therefore, his personal examination under Section 313 of the Code cannot be dispensed with nor the accused be permitted to be examined through his learned lawyer, even when his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with by the Court earlier. Admittedly, in this case the accused was never enjoying any exemption under Section 205 of the Code. However, the accused has sought for such exemption at the stage of his examination under Section 313 of the Code on the ground that he was seriously ill having suffered a massive attack of Cerebro vascular stroke with right side hemiparesis and as a result he has been lying completely bed ridden due to paralysis. The necessary medical papers in support of such claim have been filed with this criminal revision and the authenticity of the same has not been disputed by the learned advocate of the State. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of the statement of the accused as to his illness. Thus, indisputably if the accused is now insisted to be present in Court for his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal 3 Procedure by undertaking a long journey from his present place of residence at Kolkata to Jalpaiguri, obviously that would cause enormous hardship to him and might be a serious threat to his health. In this connection it would be more apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keya Mukherjee v. Magma Leasing Limited & Anr., 2008 2 CalCriLR 646, where the Apex Court held as follows;