N BALA SUNDRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IDENTICAL question in respect of exemption of personal attendance of the accused petitioner arises in the instant petitions therefore both these petitions were heard analogously and are proposed to be decided by a common order.

(2.) A perusal of material on record ex facie shows that the petitioner is an old man of 85 years of age having heart ailment. He has been made accused in two criminal cases bearing Nos. 140/96 and 653/96 in the capacity of occupier of the CIMMCO BIRLA LTD. Learned trial court took cognizance under Sections 21, 45, 49, 62 and 113 of the Factories Act and Rules 65 MM. 68(2)(3), 85 and 110 of the Rajasthan Factories Rules, 1951 and Rule 3(6) and 31 of the Rajasthan Welfare Offi- cers (Recruitment of Conditions of Services) Rules, 1959 and the petitioner and co-accused Mardan Singh Factory Manager of CIMMCO BIRLA LTD. Co-accused Mardan Singh put in appearance before the trial court. Bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner by the trial court in Case No. 140/96. Two applications were filed by the petitioner on Sept. 27, 1996 but the trial court issued warrant of arrest. Thereafter applications for cancelling the warrant of arrest were filed but they were rejected. However, learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur vide order dated October 3, 1996 converted the non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this court and after dismissal of writ petition, the learned trial court again issued bailable warrants against the petitioner on Feb. 5, 1998, the petitioner submitted exemption applications before the trial court which were dismissed vide orders dated March 3, 1998. The said orders have been assailed in these petitions.

(3.) IN Prova Debi vs. Mrs. Fernandes (2) Full Bench of Calcutta High Court had occasion to consider a case when warrant was issued initially but the orders for issue of the warrant was recalled on the very next day and no warrant was issued. Full Bench placed reliance on Jagdish vs. Emperor (3) and held that petitioner was legally permitted to be represented by a pleader under Sec. 205 (1) Cr. P. C. IN Jagdish vs. Emperor it was observed that where a warrant was issued but cancelled and then a summons issued,the Magistrate could exercise the power under Section 205 (1) Cr. P. C.