Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • M.Y Eqbal, J.
Acts
  • provisions of section 317 Cr. P.C
  • section 205 Cr. P.C
  • Section 251 Cr. P.C
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • M.Y Eqbal, J.
Acts
  • provisions of section 317 Cr. P.C
  • section 205 Cr. P.C
  • Section 251 Cr. P.C
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners were prosecuted and ordered to face trial under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After the criminal case was instituted, the petitioners surrendered before the trial court and were granted bail, as the offence was bailable. The petitioners were continuously represented by their lawyers under the provisions of section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C). The trial court directed the petitioners to be physically present on 16.6.1997 for explaining the substance of the accusation. Instead of appearing personally, the petitioners filed an application under section 205 Cr. P.C on 24.1.1998 seeking exemption from personal appearance even for this purpose. The trial court rejected this application, holding that the personal presence of the accused was necessary for explaining the substance of the accusation. The petitioners then filed the present application under section 482 Cr. P.C challenging the order dated 4.5.1998 rejecting their application under section 205 Cr. P.C.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the trial court was correct in holding that the personal appearance of the accused is necessary for explaining the substance of the accusation under section 251 Cr. P.C?
  2. Whether the benefit of exemption from personal appearance under section 205 Cr. P.C should be liberally extended, especially when the accused is represented by counsel?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners contended that since they were represented by their lawyers under section 317 Cr. P.C, their personal appearance was not necessary for explaining the substance of accusation under section 251 Cr. P.C.
  • They relied on precedents to argue that the lawyer is competent to answer the accusation on behalf of the accused and that exemption from personal appearance under section 205 Cr. P.C should be liberally granted, particularly in trivial or technical cases.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Srinivash Vajpai v. State of Bihar (1976 BLJR 248; 1976 PLJR 521) Law that once an accused is permitted to be represented by counsel, the lawyer is competent to answer the accusation under section 251 Cr. P.C. The court relied on this precedent to hold that personal appearance is not necessary if the accused is represented by counsel.
S.C Jain v. State of Bihar (1984 PLJR 16) Benefit of section 205 Cr. P.C should be liberally extended, especially in trivial or technical cases. The court cited this case to support the view that exemption from personal appearance should be granted liberally.
Ravi Singh v. State of Bihar (1979 BBCJ 437) Section 251 Cr. P.C requires only that the accused answer the accusation, which can be done by a pleader on behalf of the accused. The court used this precedent to reinforce that a lawyer’s presence suffices for explaining the substance of accusation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the impugned order and found that the trial court had not correctly appreciated the law regarding personal appearance for explaining the substance of accusation under section 251 Cr. P.C. It noted that the petitioners were continuously represented by counsel under section 317 Cr. P.C, and cited authoritative precedents establishing that once representation by counsel is permitted, the lawyer is competent to answer the accusation on behalf of the accused. The court emphasized that section 251 Cr. P.C requires only that the accused answer the accusation (plead guilty or claim trial), which can be done by the lawyer. It further highlighted that exemption from personal appearance under section 205 Cr. P.C should be liberally extended, especially in trivial or technical cases. Based on this legal framework, the court concluded that the trial court’s insistence on personal appearance was unsustainable in law.

Holding and Implications

The application under section 482 Cr. P.C is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.5.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is set aside.

It is held that the lawyer representing the petitioners is competent to answer the accusation as required under section 251 Cr. P.C, and the petitioners are exempted from personal appearance for explaining the substance of the accusation. The decision directly affects the parties by relieving the petitioners from mandatory personal appearance but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the reaffirmation of existing law.

Show full summary ...

    Shantunu Das & Ors. v. State Of Bihar & Anr.

    1. In this application filed u/s 482 Cr. P.C petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 4.5.98 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in C. No. 326/91 whereby application filed u/s 205 Cr. P.C has been rejected.

    2. It appears that petitioners have been prosecuted and ordered to face trial u/s 500 I.P.C After institution of the criminal case petitioners surrendered before the court below and were granted bail, since offence alleged is bailable.

    3. It appears that since then petitioners were all along represented by their lawyers under the provisions of section 317 Cr. P.C The court below by order dated 31.5.97 directed the petitioners to remain physically present in the court on 16.6.97 as the case was pending for explaining substance of accusation to the accused persons. Instead of appearing in the court petitioners filed a petition on 24.1.98 u/s 205 Cr. P.C for their exemption from appearance even for the purpose of explaining substance of accusation. The said application was rejected by the court below holding that their presence is necessary for explaining substance of accusation.

    4. I have heard Mr. M.K Laik learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for O.P no. 2. From perusal of the impugned order it is evident that all through the petitioners were represented through their counsel. However, the court below passed the impugned order for their personal appearance taking the view that their personal appearance is necessary for the purpose of explaining substance of accusation. In my opinion the court below has not correctly appreciated the law on this point. The law has been well settled on this point. Once an accused person on application permitted by the court to be represented through a lawyer, then the lawyer is competent to answer to the accusation on behalf of the accused u/s 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard reference may be made to Division Bench of this Court in the case of Srinivash Vajpai v. State of Bihar (1976 BLJR 248; 1976 PLJR 521). Similarly in the case of S.C Jain v. State of Bihar (1984, PLJR 16) a Bench of this Court following the earlier Bench decision in the case of Ravi Singh v. State of Bihar (1979 BBCJ 437) has held that benefit of section 205 Cr. P.C should be liberally extended particularly in all trivial and technical cases. Their lordships further held that Section 251 Cr. P.C merely requires answer to the accusation as to whether accused pleaded guilty or claimed to be tried on the charges and this part can be complied with even by a pleader on behalf of the accused.

    5. In that view of the matter impugned order passed by the court below directing for personal appearance for the purpose of explaining the substance of accusation cannot be sustained in law. For the reasons aforesaid this application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the court below is set aside. It is held that the lawyer representing the petitioners will be competent to answer the accusation as required u/s 251 Cr. P.C

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Shantunu Das & Ors. v. State Of Bihar & Anr.
    (Oct 14, 1999)