SURENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the Opposite Party No.2 in spite of repeated calls, even though the opposite party No.2 has appeared through Advocate.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2008 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, in T.R. No.619 of 2008, arising out of Complaint Case No. 1163 of 2006, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C, has been rejected by the Court below. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 7 in the complaint petition, being the Circle Officer, Hazaribagh and the Circle Inspector, Sadar Anchal, Hazaribagh.

(3.) There is allegation against the petitioners also in the complaint case, which was instituted for the alleged offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 323, 379, 506, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are presently facing the trial in the said case. The petitioners filed application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C., for dispensing with their personal attendance on each and every date, which has been rejected by the Court below. The impugned order itself shows that the petitioners had given an undertaking in the Court below that they shall not challenge the identification during the trial as accused and they shall have no objection even if the evidence is recorded in their absence.