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
9 paragraphs · 251 wordsSashikanta Mishra, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.12.2021 passed by learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack, whereby his application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
The petitioner is facing trial in 2(c)CC No. 17 of 1986 for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 14(1A) and 14(A) of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Paragraph 76(d) of the Employees’ Provident Scheme, 1952. He was granted exemption from personal appearance on an application filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.. However, on the date fixed no steps were taken on his behalf, for which coercive steps were taken. However, his application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was rejected
It is submitted by Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a senior citizen suffering from several old age ailments and therefore, was not in a position to attend the Court on each date of posting of the case. However, he intends to appear when it is absolutely essential.
Considering the submissions as above and the fact that his personal attendance had earlier been dispensed with, the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to pass necessary orders allowing the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit and proper.
The CRLMC is disposed of.
………………………….