CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Asif vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 22 April 2008 · Citation: (2008) 3 ACR 2433

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amar Saran, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 205, 244
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.A. No. 8688 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 354 words

Amar Saran, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate.

2.

This application has been filed for challenging an order dated 17.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Jaunpur in Case No. 4516 of 2006 whereby the applicant''s application for exemption of his attendance u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

3.

In the said order, it has been observed by the trial Judge that the applicant was not appearing as he was in Saudi Arabia and when non-bailable warrant was issued, he appeared and thereafter non-bailable warrant was recalled and he was granted bail. The statement of the complainant u/s 244, Cr.P.C., has been recorded and now the charge has to be framed, in which the appearance of the accused is essential. The visa of the applicant was only up to 11.3.2008 and now the said date has expired. Although learned Counsel for the applicant states orally that visa has been extended, but no proof has been filed in support thereof.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention of the two decisions of learned single Judge of this Court in Laxmi Narain Agarwal and Anr. v. State and Anr. 1995 (2) JIC 1915 and Sardar Jaspal Singh v. State and Ors. 1995 (2) JIC 1845 ,for the proposition that when the accused resides at a long distance, his appearance should be exempted and he should be allowed to appear through counsel, but those decisions were not at the stage when the charge was to be framed, but were related to an earlier stage.

5.

In this view of the matter, I think that the learned Magistrate has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order.

6.

However, as the applicant''s work is involved, which he claims to be doing in Saudi Arabia, as far as possible the trial court shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order provided the applicant cooperates with the trial and there is no legal impediment.

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.