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
8 paragraphs · 277 wordsJUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.K. Padhi, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the CBI.
The order dated 12.7.2003 passed by the Learned Special CJM (CBI), Bhubaneswar in SPE No. 9 of 2003 rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. is under challenge.
It appears from the impugned order that the Petitioner filed a petition u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. stating that he is a professional Architect and in connection with the professional work he is required to go abroad and moves to various placed inside India and unless his personal appearance is dispensed with, his profession would be affected. Learned Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the Petitioner may taking advantage of the order go abroad and cause delay in disposal of the proceeding.
There is no dispute that the Petitioner is a professional Architect and in his petition he has specified that in his professional work he not only goes to abroad but also on certain occasions move around the country. Therefore, the Trial Court should have allowed the petition and should not have rejected the petition on the ground which is not legal.
I, therefore, allow this application and direct that personal appearance of the Petitioner shall be dispensed with so long as same is not required by the Trial Court. If the Petitioner fails to appear before the Court as and when required by the Trial Court, recourse to Sub-section (2) of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. shall be taken.
Urgent certified copy of the order is granted on proper application.
Application allowed.