Shrikant Somani vs Ram Kumar Aggarwal

Manju Goel, J.—Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl. M.C. 434/2005 in Crl. M.A. 1429/2005:

This Petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the Orders dated 15.12.2004 passed by Shri Gurdeep Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner had been exempted to appear personally. The petitioner represented to the Court that he was a resident of Pune and Therefore it was inconvenient for him to appear before that personally. The Judgment of the Delhi Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shivani Sadanand Vs. State and Another, and M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Others, have been cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Order to assert that the petitioner is entitled to exemption from personal appearance. In Shivani Sadanand''s case accused was a resident of Bombay and it was observed that it would mean a lot of hardship if he was required to come to Delhi and since the absence of the accused would not hamper the progress of the Trial, he was entitled to exemption. In the Judgment in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (supra) also it was observed that if insistence on personal appearance resulted in enormous hardship in a case of 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court may dispense with the personal appearance. None of the two judgments however say that such an exemption should be granted on mere asking. The Trial Court has found that the petitioner is normally a resident of Delhi and has set up the excuse of his being a resident of Pune only to evade the process of the Court. It is admitted before this Court that the summons issued by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate was served upon the petitioner in Delhi.

I find no substance in the petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.