Case Note & Summary
The complainant, Shri. Annasaheb Malagonda Patil, filed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, challenging an order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi, in Sessions Case No.269 of 2014. The impugned order allowed an application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) seeking exemption from personal attendance during the trial. The complainant argued that the exemption order would prejudice the trial and that the accused should be compelled to appear in person. The High Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The court observed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are facing trial in Sessions Case No.269 of 2014 and that the order granting exemption from personal attendance was passed by the trial court. The court held that the complainant has no locus standi to challenge such an order, as the complainant is not a necessary party to the proceedings concerning the exemption of the accused from personal attendance. The court noted that the discretion to grant exemption lies with the trial court under Section 205 Cr.P.C., and the complainant cannot maintain a revision petition against such an order. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Locus Standi - Complainant's Right to Challenge Exemption Order - The complainant has no locus standi to challenge an order granting exemption from personal attendance to the accused under Section 205 Cr.P.C. - The court held that the complainant is not a necessary party to such proceedings and cannot maintain a revision petition against the order. (Paras 3-4) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Exemption from Personal Attendance - Section 205 Cr.P.C. - The court may exempt an accused from personal attendance if it is satisfied that the accused is not likely to abscond or cause delay - The order granting exemption is a matter of discretion of the trial court and cannot be interfered with at the instance of the complainant. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complainant has locus standi to challenge an order granting exemption from personal attendance to the accused in a sessions case.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, holding that the complainant has no locus standi to challenge the order granting exemption from personal attendance to the accused.
Law Points
- Locus standi of complainant
- Exemption from personal attendance under Section 205 Cr.P.C.
- Revision jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.
