1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Pappu @ Sanjay Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2247/2008. UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 6th May, 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Rajesh Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Kumar Meena PP for the State. This misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 15th October, 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that accused-petitioner is facing trial for the offence under section 376 IPC before the learned trial court. The prosecutrix Kumari Anjali appeared in the court on 10.9.2008 and at that time she requested the court that she was hesitating in giving statement in the presence of accused, therefore, the trial court kept the accused near the gate of the court and in presence of the advocate of the accused, her statement was recorded. The advocate in whose presence the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded made a prayer after recording of examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix that his senior was out of station and he was not in a position to cross examine the witness. The court adjourned the 2 case to 15.10.2008. On 15.10.2008, an application under section 273 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner with the prayer that the accused should remain present before the prosecutrix in the court at the time of recording her statement. The learned trial court considering the entire matter and finding that the witness was scared and hesitating in giving statement in the presence of accused, kept the accused at a distance of 15-17 ft from the prosecutrix and also dispensed with the presence of the accused and got completed the cross-examination rejecting the application of the accused moved under section 273 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition has been filed. It is contended that section 273 Cr.P.C. requires presence of the accused in the trial when statement of the witnesses are recorded. It is also contended that the statement so recorded is not admissible in evidence. Learned public prosecutor has opposed the submissions. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is correct that normal procedure is to record statement of the witnesses during the course of trial in the presence of accused unless the personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with. In the instant case, a request was made by the prosecutrix to the court that accused should be kept away at the time of recording statement as she was hesitating in 3 giving her statement. In the above circumstances, the trial court kept the accused near the gate of the court and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix in the presence of Mr. Sunil Sharma, counsel for the accused. After recording examination-in-chief, the advocate of the accused sought adjournment for the reason that his senior was out of station. The trial court granted adjournment and on subsequent date cross-examination was completed keeping the accused at a distance of 15-17 ft from the prosecutrix after dispensing with personal presence of the accused. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused or the prosecutrix was not visible to him at the time of recording of her statement. On one occasion, the entire examination-in-chief was recorded and the matter was adjournment and on subsequent occasion the accused was kept at a distance of 15-17 ft. from the witness. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel that the statement recorded is not admissible in evidence and the statement of the prosecutrix was required to be recorded only in his presence is not liable to be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the accused was very much present near the gate of the court room on first occasion when examination-in-chief was recorded and thereafter he was 15-17 ft. away from the prosecutrix at the time of cross-examination. The statement of the prosecutrix, therefore, appears was recorded in the presence of the accused 4 and a lengthy cross-examination has been done, in my opinion, the trial court has rightly rejected the application and has also taken care to dispense with the personal presence of the accused. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this misc. petition is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) BBLM