IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51636 of 2007 ANISH CHAKRABORTY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 24.9.2008. Heard Sri Gouranga Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against order dated 23.08.2007 passed by Sri Habibullah, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No.2781(C) of 2005 whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to dispense with his personal attendance and allow him to be represented through his counsel under Section 205 Cr.P.C. It appears that following an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case under Sections 323 and 342 I.P.C. was found to have been made out against the accused persons. The petitioner is said to be the Director of “Seacon Marine College” Kolkata, a registered Premier Marine Institute and the Ministry of Communication has given licence to the Institute to establish, maintain and work on Wireless Telegraph Station for research. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to know or have any transaction with the complainant, had never come to Patna and has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that the complainant has filed several cases of similar nature to extort money and the petitioner has furnished a list of 18 such cases. Finally, it has been submitted that the offences were not - 2 - of such a grievous nature that his petition for dispensing with the personal attendance ought to have been rejected. The law is very clear on the issue and reference in this connection may be made to the case of S.V. Mazumdar Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. reported in 2005(4) SCC 173 wherein it was observed that it has to be borne in mind that while dealing with an application in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., the court has to consider whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or whether progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence. The petitioner has already given an undertaking in court that he shall be present in court as and when so ordered and on all other dates shall be represented by his lawyer. The offences whereunder cognizance has been taken are bailable. There was no reason for the learned Magistrate to have rejected the petition under Section 205 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. I am satisfied that in the instant case the personal presence of the petitioner on each and every date fixed was not an imperative in absence whereof the progress of the trial would be hindered. The trial court was required to see this aspect of the matter which he failed to do. I am of the view that this is a fit case for allowing the prayer. As such the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is allowed and his personal appearance is dispensed with subject to the presence of the petitioner as and when required by the court in accordance with law. - 3 - With the aforesaid observations, this application stands allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)