BIKRAM KUMAR ROUTRAY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's application for dispensing with his personal attendance in terms of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') having been turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Banpur, this application has been filed.

(2.) THE prayer was turned down primarily on the ground that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner was of a very serious nature and involves moral turpitude. The petitioner's case is that accusations were false and were aimed at lowering down his reputation in the society and in any event the maximum punshment for an offence punishable Under Section 177. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) is simple imprisonment for a term which any extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The learned counsel for State raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application submitting that the revision is not maintainable. By way of reply the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that technicality should not stand on the way and this Court in exercise of its inherent power Under Section 482 of the Code can prevent abuse of process of law.

(3.) SUB -section (2) of Section 205 empowers a Magistrate to direct personal attendance of the accused, if necessary at a later stage. In such cases where for the disposal of the case, the personal appearance of the accused is not necessary and the pleader undertakes to be present in the Court on behalf of the accused, the Magistrate should be liberal in accepting prayer for dispensing with personal presence of accused. In all trivial and technical cases, the Court should exercise the discretion. Section 206 of the Code, itself shows that in petty cases personal appearance of the accused should not be insisted upon. Law enjoins that an accused should be present during the course of the trial more to safeguard his interests than to cause him inconvenience.