NAUD LAL PODDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will govern Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3642 of 1976 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4295 of 1976 as the same point is involved in both the cases. Both the petitions are under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code')

(2.) In Criminal Miscellaneous No 3642 of 1976, petitioner no 1 is Shri Nand Lal Poddar of Rohtas Industries Ltd., Dalmianagar and petitioner no. 2 is Shri D. V. Singh, the Factory Manager of the said Rohtas Industries. Both of them have been prosecuted under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri S, B. J ha. Inspector of Factories. This case was registered as Case No. 91 (O) of 1976 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram After taking cognizance, the case was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the file of Shri B. K. P. Kashyap, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram, for disposal. In his court, it was numbered as Case No. 91 (O)/950 of 1977 (State v. A'. L. Poddar and another). They have been prosecuted for a technical offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, which prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both. Obviously, therefore, it is a summons case. On the 2nd of July, 1976, an application was filed by the petitioners who were accused in that case before Shri B. K. P. Kashyap for permitting them to appear through their lawyer under sections 205 and 317 of Code. Two petitions had been filed separately on behalf of the two petitioners, which are annexures 2 and 2/a to the application in this court. Both of them had appeared even before summons was received by them. So far petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his plea was that he did not ordinarily reside at Dalmianagar and in course of business he had to be in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi and other places as also some times abroad He had given a list of the firms of which he was Director or Partner or share-holder. He, therefore, prayed for representation through lawyer, of course, undertaking to be personally present in the court whenever required. Shri D. V. Singh in his petition also disclosed that he was connected with a number of concerns and was also working as the Chief Personnel Manager and Factory Manager of Rohtas Industries Ltd. and he also was required to visit Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and other places in course of his business. While praying for exemption from personal appearance and representation through lawyer, he also undertook to be personally present in court as and when directed. Both these petitions were filed on 22.7.1976, but were rejected by the same order on 22.7. L976 itself. The main grounds for refusal were that their remaining busy with other works could not be a ground for exemption, that they resided very close to the court and that they had sufficient transport facilities to appear in the court. Against that order, the petitioners have preferred this case under section 482 of the Code.

(3.) In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4295 of 1976, the petitioner is Shri J. P. Saxena, Nominated Owner, Baulia Lime Stone Mine of M/s Sone Valley Portland Cement Co. Ltd., Dalmianagar. He along with three others were prosecuted at the instance of the Joint Director of Mines Safety, Kodarma Region, district Hazaribagh, for contravention of certain provisions of the Mines Act, 1952. The petition of complaint was liled in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, on 10.6.1976 and was numbered as Criminal Case No. 89 (O) of 1976. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 22 (3) of the Mines Act, 1952, which is punishable under section 72-B of the Mines Act and transferred the case to the file of Shri B. K. P. Kashyap, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram, for disposal on 21.6.1976. In the transferee court, it was numbered as Case No. 98(O) of 1976/T.R. No.949(O) of 1976. The punishment provided under section 72-B of the Mines Act is imprisonment which may extend to two years and fine upto five thousand rupees. Obviously, therefore, it is also a summons cas-3 On 21.7.1976 itself, a petition was filed on behalf of the principal accused, Shri J. P. Saxena (who is petitioner in this case) under sections 205 and 317 of the Code for permission to appear through a lawyer during the course of the trial. A true copy of that petition is Amiexure 2 to the application in this court. The grounds are that he is also the Executive President of M/s Rohtas Industries Ltd. and he is always busy with the altairs of the industries within the entire comlex at Dalmianagar. He is also required to go to Patna, Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and some times abroad oven. He has given the list of the concerns of which he is Director, President or Member or Share-holder. In view of his various engagements, he, therefore, prayed for exemption from personal appearance and representation through lawyer of course undertaking to appear personally, if and when required. This petition was also rejected on 21.7.1976 on the grounds similar to those in the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3642 of 1976. The copy of the order of the Judicial Magistrate has been annexed marked as Annexure 3 to this application. Against this order, this application under section 482 of the Code has been preferred.