Summary
The Court granted conditional exemption from routine personal attendance to an accused who had travelled from Delhi to Hyderabad for weekly hearings since 2013. The seriousness of the charges did not prevent application of the established exemption principles. There was no evidence that he had attempted to delay trial, and attendance through counsel with enforceable undertakings could protect its progress.
Issues
- Whether routine personal attendance could be dispensed with in a serious criminal prosecution where distance and business obligations caused hardship.
- What conditions would ensure that exemption did not delay trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Exemption was granted with representation and cooperation conditions, while preserving power to require personal attendance. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- Personal attendance serves progress of the trial rather than attendance for its own sake. The principles permitting exemption could apply notwithstanding the more serious charges in this case, with safeguards protecting the administration of justice. (¶ 6)
- The accused’s regular attendance, distant residence and absence of evidence that he had delayed trial supported relief. Two co-accused in cases arising from the same FIR had also obtained exemption on similar grounds. (¶ 6)
- The accused must undertake not to dispute identity, accept recording of evidence in his absence, ensure counsel’s presence at every hearing and seek no adjournments. He must attend for framing charges and whenever the trial court requires. Counsel’s absence, requests for adjournment or attempts to delay permit restoration of attendance at every adjournment. (¶ 7)
Result
Appeal allowed and the orders refusing exemption set aside. Routine personal appearance was dispensed with subject to the specified undertakings, counsel’s attendance, personal attendance for framing charges and whenever directed, and the trial court’s power to restore compulsory attendance.