-: 1 :- APL-1053/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPL. NO. 1053 OF 2011 Narendrakumar s/o Vedprakash Gupta & Ors. ..Applicants. Versus S. S. Kale, Drugs Inspector, Food & Drugs Administration & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Prasant Naik for the applicants. Mr. D. R. More, APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : November 9, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard. The applicants are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. At the instance of Drug Inspector, the complaint has been filed in the Court of CJM, Raigad, Alibag, which is numbered as RCC No.5 of 1995. The process was issued against the accused, including the applicants. The applicants being the Directors of accused no.7-company, are impleaded as accused. The allegations in the complaint is that the drugs seized from M/s. Parshwa Sales was purportedly srp -: 2 :- APL-1053/11 manufactured by accused no.7. The applicants initially preferred an application for exemption and same was granted till further orders. 2. The original accused nos.5 & 6 are not available for trial though they were served, therefore, case against them was separated. On 22/8/20111 accused nos.1 to 4 were directed to remain present on 5/9/2011. On 5/9/2011 these accused preferred an application for exemption, which was allowed and they were directed to remain present on next day, i.e., 15/9/2011. On 15/9/2011 accused no.3 was present. Accused nos.1, 2 & 4 were not present, however, they preferred an application for exemption. This application was rejected by the CJM, Raigad on 15/9/2011. On the same day, cash security was forfeited and arrest warrant was issued against accused nos.1, 2 & 4, who are applicants in this application. 3. The applicants are residents of Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The criminal case is pending against them at Raigad since 1996. The applicants by application at Exhibit-77 in above RCC made it clear that they are willing to proceed with the case even if exempted from personal appearance. By the said application, they have given no objection for recording -: 3 :- APL-1053/11 evidence in their absence. From this application, it is clear that the applicants are not intending to scuttle the proceedings before the trial Court, on the contrary, they are ready and willing to co-operate in the said trial. In above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the Applicants at Exhibit-77 could not have been rejected. At this stage, Mr. Naik, learned counsel, on instructions of the applicants, states that the Applicants shall remain present in the trial Court at the stage of recording of statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. He further states that the applicants shall not question the recording of evidence and the authority of lawyers to conduct the cross examination of witnesses of prosecution in their absence. Statements are accepted. 4. In the above said facts and circumstances, this application can conveniently be disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- The Applicants are exempted from personally appearing in R.C.C. No.5 of 1996 pending on the file of C.J.M. Raigad, Alibag subject to following conditions : (a) The Applicants shall appear in the said case before the CJM, Raigad, Alibag at the stage of recording of their -: 4 :- APL-1053/11 statements under section 313 of Cr.P.C. (b) The Applicants shall not question the recording of evidence and the authority of the lawyers to conduct the cross examination of the witness o the prosecution in their absence. (c) The impugned orders dated 15/9/2011 and 22/8/2011 passed below Exhibits-77 and 1 respectively modified in terms of (a) and (b) above. (RANJIT MORE, J.)