vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3721 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3721 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3721 OF 2007 Suryakant C. Dalal & Anr. ... Applicant v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr ... Respondents a/w a/w a/w CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3981 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3981 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3981 OF 2007 Suryakant C. Dalal & Anr. ... Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.O.P. Soni with Mahesh Joshi and Mandar Parkar for Applicants Mr.Roshan J. Cama i/b S.K. Tripathi for Respondent No.2 Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 8, 2008 APRIL 8, 2008 APRIL 8, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . These two applications have been filed by the accused contending that the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Court had erred in not granting exemption to the accused from their personal appearance in C.C. No.2302184/SS of 2007 and C.C. No.2303202/SS of 2007. Both the accused are aged about 82 years. Accused No.2 is a lady who is suffering from Parkinson’s disease and hip bone fracture. Medical certificates have been annexed to this application to buttress the submission on behalf of accused No.2 that she is physically unable to attend the Court. These certificates were produced : 2 : before the Courts below as well. Despite this, both the Courts have refused to grant exemption from personal attendance. 2. Accused No.2 is 82 years of age and is suffering from Parkinson’s disease a hip bone fracture. Her medical condition as reflected from the certificates annexed to the applications reveal that she is bed ridden and not in a position to attend the Court at all. Therefore, in my opinion, an exception to the rule of personal attendance of the accused can be made in her case. She, need not remain present before the learned Magistrate. 3. As regards accused No.1, the learned advocate appearing for him submits that accused No.1 is also of advanced age and, therefore, he should be granted exemption from personal appearance. In my opinion, merely because accused No.1 is of advanced age, would not merit an exemption unless there is material on record to indicate that he is physically incapable of attending the Court. 4. In such circumstances, the applications in respect of accused No.2-applicant No.2 are allowed. She is granted exemption from personal appearance in C.C. No.2302184/SS of 2007 and C.C. No.2303202/SS of 2007. : 3 : before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. However, the learned advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 will ensure that he is present on the dates fixed before the trial Court and not seek unnecessary adjournments. 5. The Criminal Applications in respect of accused No.1-applicant No.1 are rejected accordingly.