SANTOSH KUMAR PANDA Vs. MAMATANJALI TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an officer of State Police Administration and is now posted as Officer-in-Charge of Oupada Police Station. The opp. party filed a complaint against him before the S.D.J.M., Nilgiri which was registered as 1 C.C. No. 48 of 1995. The learned Magistrate after conducting enquiry under S. 202, Cr. P.C. took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 294 and 506, IPC and issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance. In response to the summons the petitioner entered appearance through his counsel and filed a petition under S. 205, Cr. P.C. playing to dispense with his personal attendance. The learned Magistrate relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ramaprasad Rout v. Madan Mohan Das (1990) 69 Cut LT 456, rejected the said prayer. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application under S. 482 Cr. P.C. challenging the said order.

(2.) Since the question for determination revolves round the scope and power of the Magistrate to dispense with accused's personal attendance under S. 205, Cr. P.C. it is desirable to refer the same which reads as under :

(3.) In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nilgiri is set aside. The petitioner's personal attendance in the Court is dispensed with. He is permitted to appear through his counsel till conclusion of the trial. It is however, made clear that if his personal attendance is required during trial, the Court any by resorting to sub-Sec. (2) of S. 205, Cr. P.C. enforce his attendance.