Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Puneet Dalmia, was accused No. 3 in a CBI case (C.C. No. 12 of 2013) pending before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, for offences under Sections 120B read with 420, 409 IPC and Sections 9, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was summoned on 13.05.2013 and granted bail on 07.06.2019, with a condition to attend court every Friday. Since 2013, he had been appearing every Friday, traveling from Delhi to Hyderabad (approx. 1500 km), spending two days per visit, causing hardship to his business as a director of several companies. He filed an application under Section 205 CrPC seeking exemption from personal appearance, offering to appear through counsel and abide by conditions. The trial court rejected the application, and the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh dismissed his petition on 10.09.2018, citing the gravity of offences and potential delay. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The Court relied on Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401 and Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608, holding that Section 205 CrPC empowers courts to dispense with personal attendance if satisfied that it is in the interest of justice, considering factors like hardship, progress of trial, and representation through counsel. The Court noted that the appellant had not delayed the trial, and two co-accused had been granted permanent exemption. The Court directed that the appellant be exempted from personal appearance on every Friday, subject to conditions: he must appear through counsel, not seek adjournments, appear when required by the trial court, and file an undertaking. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 205 CrPC - Dispensation of Personal Appearance - Business Hardship - The appellant, accused in a CBI case, sought exemption from personal appearance on every Friday due to business commitments and distance (Delhi to Hyderabad). The Supreme Court held that the trial court has discretion under Section 205 CrPC to dispense with personal attendance if satisfied that it is in the interest of justice, considering the hardship to the accused and the progress of trial. The Court allowed the exemption subject to conditions, noting that the appellant had been attending regularly since 2013 and had not delayed the trial. (Paras 6-9) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 205 CrPC - Parity with Co-Accused - The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had granted permanent exemption to two other accused in the same case on similar grounds. The Court held that parity is a relevant consideration, and the appellant should not be treated differently without valid reason. (Para 6) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 205 CrPC - Seriousness of Offence - The Court rejected the argument that exemption should be denied due to the gravity of offences (including Prevention of Corruption Act). It held that the seriousness of the offence does not automatically preclude exemption under Section 205 CrPC; the court must balance the need for the accused's presence with the progress of trial and hardship. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court and Trial Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application under Section 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance on every Friday, considering his business commitments and the distance between Delhi and Hyderabad.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and directed that the appellant be exempted from personal appearance on every Friday, subject to conditions: (i) he shall appear through counsel on each date; (ii) he shall not seek adjournments; (iii) he shall appear before the trial court as and when required; (iv) he shall file an undertaking to this effect.
Law Points
- Section 205 CrPC
- dispensation of personal appearance
- discretion of trial court
- business hardship as valid ground
- parity with co-accused
- Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd.
- Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar
