GRINDLAYS BANK LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application under section 401 read with section 482 Cr. P.C. by the accused petitioners is directed against order dated 5.8.81, passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta refusing the prayer of the accused petitioners for exemption from personal attendance in case No. C/217 of 19151. THE prosecution in the present cage was under section 276D read with sections 278B(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the accused were Grindlays Bank Limited, the petitioner No.1 herein and three of its officers, namely the other petitioners. THEre is no doubt that for the offence alleged the procedure prescribed for summons case wag to be followed and summons was issued. On behalf of the Bank a petition for exemption was filed under section 305 of the code and on behalf of the Bank employees separate petitions for personal exemption were filed under section 205 of the code. THE learned Magistrate has rejected the last mentioned petition. THE reason given by the learned Magistrate is that the offence is serious and allegations are serious and grant of exemption would amount to extension of V.I.P treatment. To speak the least the order is ill worded and betray some sort of indignation on the part of the learned Magistrate which should have been held inT check. Seriousness of offence is not a matter of consideration in this case. THE offence alleged undoubtedly was to be dealt with in summons procedure and section 205 applies to summons cases. This disposes of the alleged seriousness of the allegations made against the accused petitioners. From a plain reading of section 205 it appears that the accused's prayer for exemption should be favourably considered. In this connection reliance may be placed to the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this court in Criminal Revision No. 1352 of 1974. THE learned Magistrate himself bas observed that the accused should appear on dates of examination under section 251 and under section 313 Cr. P.C. If the learned Magistrate consider their personal presence necessary on the said dates certainly be will be well entitled to pass appropriate orders under section 205(2) of the code. For the present one thing should have weighed with the learned Magistrate, namely, that the petitioners are officers of a reputed Bank. Even if the office of the Ban was located near the court the absence of the petitioners from the Bank would have meant inconvenience to the customers and clients of the Bank. Petitioners did not pray for V.I.P. treatment. THEy in all humility express their desire to serve the clients and customers of the Bank. THE learned Magistrate should have considered the applications of the petitioners from the view point noted above. If be bad done that be would have no hesitation to grant the prayer of the petitioners. In the aforesaid circumstances Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the State bas not much to support the order impugned. Accordingly, the revisional application succeeds, the rule issued is made absolute and the Order impugned is set aside. THE learned Magistrate, is directed to consider the petition of the officers of the Bank under section 205 Cr. C.P. afresh in the light of the observations made above and be will also consider the application of the Bank under section 305 which bas not yet been disposed of. If the learned Magistrate is convinced that ends of justice be required be will have the liberty to pass the appropriate order under section 205(2) at appropriate stage. THE stay order granted is vacated. THE records be sent down expeditiously with a direction on the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case as early as possible. Revision allowed.