RAM DAHIN SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Palamau at Daltonganj, in CG. Case No. 3 of 2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. for permitting him to appear through his advocate, has been rejected by the Court below One another application under Section 305 of the Cr.P.C. had also been filed, which had been allowed by the Court below by the same order. The petitioner has challenged only the order passed upon the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The impugned order shows that the petitioner is facing trial in the said case being the Factory Manager of Aditya Birla Group, against which the complaint petition has been filed for various offences under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner appeared in the Court below on summons and stated that he was holding the post of Assistant Vice-President in the Company having turn over of more than 800 crores, and he was also suffering from heart ailments, and accordingly it was very difficult for him to attend the Court on each and every date in view of his official engagements and heart ailments. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. but the said application has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order, stating that these are not the reasonable and just cause for allowing the petition filed under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is submitted that taking into consideration the official responsibilities of the petitioner as also his ailments, the application filed under Section 205 of the Cr. P.C. ought to have been allowed.