IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 24 of 2007 Narendra Kumar .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …… Respondents April 10, 2009 Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder fo the State/respondent no. 1. r None for the respondent no. 2. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar on the application of the revisionist seeking exemption from personal attendance in the court on 17.1.2007, who is being tried in Case Crime No. 273 of 2005 (Sessions Trial No. 435 of 2005), State v. Narendra under Section 306 of I.P.C. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.1.2007, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee rejected the application of the revisionist and has cancelled his bail and issued non-bailable warrant against him as well as notices to the sureties. 3. Revisionist is being tried in connection with Case Crime No. 273 of 2005 under Section 306 of I.P.C., PS Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. He was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2005. On 17.1.2007, the case was fixed for evidence before the trial court. Revisionist Narendra Kumar had moved an application through his Counsel seeking exemption from personal 2 attendance on the said date owing to some domestic reasons. When the case was called out, the Counsel for the revisionist did not appear and learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the aforesaid application of the revisionist and issued non-bailable warrant against him and notices to the sureties. 4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist remained present before the trial court on each and every date, whereas prosecution witnesses were not present. The revisionist because of some urgent domestic work sought exemption from his personal attendance on 17.1.2007 and he duly moved an application with the said prayer through his Counsel. Learned Counsel has further submitted that when the case was called out, the Counsel for the revisionist was arguing in some other court and, therefore, he could not appear. Learned Counsel for revisionist has also submitted that if the three prosecution witnesses were present on the said date before the trial court, then why their signatures were not obtained on the order sheet. Learned Counsel for the revisionist very emphatically argued that revisionist was entitled to get exemption from personal attendance in view of the provisions contained under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. 5. I find substance in the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist inasmuch as there is specific provision in Section 205 of Cr.P.C. that the personal attendance of the accused may be dispensed with and permission to appear through his Counsel may be granted. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 17.1.2007 of the 3 Additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is allowed. Order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee is hereby set aside. Revisionist Narendra Kumar is directed to appear before the trial court on 23.4.2009. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.04.2009 PRABODH