IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3611 of 2010(B) -------------------------------------- [CRL.M.P. NO. 103/2010 IN S.C. NO. 661/2009 OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY DTD. 11/08/2010] ............ PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- SANDEEP P.V., S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 33, RESIDING AT 'SIMPLE' PODIKUNDU, P.O.PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR-4, NOW EMPLOYED AT SCANIA WORKSHOP, P.O.BOX NO.34045, ABU-DHABI, U.A.E. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SRI. ANEESH JOSEPH. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3611 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 27th day of October,2010 ORDER The case against the petitioner was committed to Sessions Court, Thalassry and taken on file as S.C.661/2009. When summons was issued for appearance by Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, petitioner filed Crl.M.P.103/2010 under section 205 and 317 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense his personal presence for the purpose of recording the evidence and also to answer the questions under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. By Annexure IV order learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure IV order and to direct the learned Sessions Judge to grant exemption from appearance. Crl.M.C.3611/2010 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that petitioner is employed in Abu Dhabi and in such circumstance, he is not in a position to appear before the court and he has authorised the counsel named in the affidavit to appear on his behalf stating that he will not dispute the identity and will not question the answers given by his counsel during questioning under section 313 and in such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge should have dispensed with his presence. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Shaji v. State of Kerala (2005(3) KLT 303). 4. On hearing the counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure 4 order. Considering the gravity of the offence alleged, petitioner is not entitled to get the case tried in his absence as sought for. Petitioner has not even appeared before the learned Sessions Judge. Crl.M.C.3611/2010 3 Once petitioner appears and released on bail, if the presence of the petitioner is to be dispensed for any specific purpose, he is at liberty to apply. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006