SURENDRA PRASAD @ SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that interest of justice requires interference of this Court with the order of the trial court as well as the revisional court so that petitioner may be permitted the benefit of section 205 of the Cr.PC even at the stage of framing of charge because the case is of a petty nature and charges proposed are under section 379 read with section 34 of the IPC for cutting away of crops by the petitioner and his family members over a piece of land for which there is a civil dispute between the parties. From the materials on record it appears that the petitioner was earlier granted benefit of section 205. of Cr.PC and was allowed to be represented through his counsel at the stage of trial. Subsequently a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner and other accused persons who are family members of the petitioner for framing of charge and for that purpose, the trial court directed for personal appearance of all the accused persons including the petitioner. Petitioner could not accept this order because allegedly he is still working outside in Dubai and is not in a position to afford the cost of travelling only for this purpose. Hence, the order was challenged in revision but the revisional court has also turned down the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner although the revision petition was filed by his father.

(3.) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances and specially, the petty nature of the criminal case against the petitioner, this Court is persuaded to accept the contention that in such circumstances, the trial court should have allowed the petitioner to be represented by his counsel even at the stage of framing of charge. This is legally permissible as would appear from a judgment of this Court in the case of Shantanu Das V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 134. Similar view has been taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case reported in AIR 1959 MP 150 and by Allahabad High Court in a case reported in 1991 Cr.LJ 1690.