Harbo vs Jankibai

Samvatsar J.

The facts giving rise to this revision application are that the opponent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of the second Additional Munsiff, Bhopal, complaining that the petitioner and his son had called her a thief and had committed an offence u/s 500 I.P C. The said complaint was dismissed and the accused were discharged on 2-12-1955: In December, 1956 she filed another complaint on the same facts against the petitioner alone. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued a summons to her to appear in Court on 16-1-1957. The petitioner did not appear in Court personally. Her counsel put in an application on her behalf and prayed for being exempted from personal appearance in Court. The application was rejected by the trial Court and the order of that Court was maintained by the Sessions Judge in revision. She has, therefore, approached this Court.

The application shows that the incident with respect to which the complaint is lodged is a very trivial one and the learned Magistrate himself did not issue a warrant but issued a summons ordering the accused to appear in Court on 16-1-1957. The ease is one to which the provisions of Section 205 can be applied. In Ramsingh vs. Gaurishonkar Criminal Revision No. 188 of 1956, I have held that the presence of the accused before the Court during the inquiry or trial is primarily intended for his benefit and if he applies to the Court to dispense with the personal attendance, the prayer should be considered unless the Court is of the opinion that the presence of the accused is necessary in the interest of justice or for any other special reason. I also held that in considering the application, the allegations in the complaint and the circumstances of the case should be taken into account and if the dispute is of a trivial nature the prayer of the accused should be considered favorably.

In the instant case the complaint of the opponent is that the petitioner called her a thief (''chotti''). The incident is said to have taken place on 18-5-1955. The first complaint itself was filed about six months thereafter. That complaint was dismissed and a fresh complaint i.e. the present complaint was filed in December 1956, The accused is a married woman and has children to attend. These facts have not been considered by the trial Magistrate. The order of the Sessions Judge is worse still. He has not even applied his mind to the merits of the case and rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was entirely within the discretion of the trial Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and as in the instant case the discretion was not shown to have been exercised injudiciously he did not feel inclined to interfere.

I do not think the learned Sessions Judge was justified in dealing with the revision application before him in this manner.

It is well settled that powers conferred upon the Court under Sec. 205 should be liberally exercised. Considering the nature of the grievance, the position of accused person and the time that has elapsed between the commission of the alleged offence and filing of the complaint, I think the accused should be exempted from personal appearance in Court during the course of trial.

I allow the revision application, set aside the order of the trial Magistrate and exempt the accused from personal attendance in Court on every date of hearing and allow her to be represented by a counsel.