Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the accused petitioner's personal appearance could be dispensed with under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a complaint based substantially on documentary evidence.
Analysis: The discretion under Section 205 is to be exercised by considering whether the accused's presence is necessary for the administration of criminal justice and whether any useful purpose would be served by insisting on attendance. Where the case is document-based, personal attendance may be dispensed with if the trial can proceed effectively through counsel and the accused undertakes to appear when required. The impugned order did not address these controlling considerations and instead proceeded on the petitioner's personal status, which was not material to the exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to conditions, and the refusal to grant such exemption was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The revisional court set aside the order refusing dispensation of personal attendance and permitted the petitioner to be represented through counsel on compliance with the specified conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint resting mainly on documents, personal attendance of the accused may be dispensed with under Section 205 if it is not necessary for the effective progress of the trial or the administration of criminal justice.