LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-44

ANAND RATHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On September 23, 2009
ANAND RATHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revisional application trie petitioners, who have been arraigned as accuseds in connection with a case instituted on a complaint relating to the offence punishable under Sections 120B/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code challenged an order, whereby the learned Court below refused to consider their application under Section 205 of the Code without their first appearance in Court.

(2.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently urged that there is no bar to consider an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without the accused first being appeared in Court. In support of such contention he relied on the following decisions : (i) Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2001 C Cr LR (SC) 481, (ii) SunilJhunjhunwala v. The State of West Bengal, reported in 2004 C Cr LR (Cal) 956, (iii) Dr. Sumit Sen v. State of West Bengal in C.R.R. No. 1730 of 2002 (unreported decision). On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party vehemently resisted this application and submitted since the case in question in connection with which the petitioners' sought for exemption under Section 205 of the Code is a warrant case, their prayer for exemption cannot be considered without their appearance in Court. In support of his contention the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions ; (i) State of Tamil Nadu v. J. Jayalalitha, reported in 2000 C Cr LR (SC) 350, (ii) V. K. Jain v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2000)1 SCC 709, (iii) Dr. Abhijit Sen & Anr. v. Mr. Sibendu Basu, reported in 2001 C Cr LR 227, (iv) V. S. Puri v. M/s. Sukna Tea and Industries & Anr., reported in 1998 CCrLR (Cal) 393. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State supported the contention raised on behalf of the complainant/opposite party.

(3.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the impugned order. Considered the case laws cited by them.