PARAMBY ANHONY CHAKOCHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in Golmuri P.S. Case no. 105 of 2003 whereby and whereunder bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and further it is also directed against the order dated 9.10.2012 as well as the order dated 11.1.2013 whereby the processes have been ordered to be issued under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was put to trial to face charges under Sections 279, 337, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After the case of the prosecution was closed, the petitioner was asked to remain present so that his statement be recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the date fixed, i.e. 28.6.2012, an application was filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for exempting the petitioner from personal appearance. While moving that application, it was submitted orally before the court that it is not possible for the petitioner to attend the court as he has gone abroad but the court without giving due consideration over it rather rejected the application filed under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the same time, bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled. Subsequently, orders were passed for issuance of the processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Learned counsel further submits that when it was communicated to the court that it is difficult on the part of the petitioner to put appearance as he has gone abroad, the court should have allowed the petitioner to record statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through his counsel, in view of the provision as contained in proviso to sub-section 1(b) of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in this kind of exigency, it would have been proper on the part of the court to get the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 through his counsel and perhaps the legislature keeping in view this kind of exigencies in his wisdom would have thought it proper to put such kind of provision in the statute.