No Legal Bar On Granting Exemption From Personal Attendance U/S. 205 CrPC In SC-ST (PoA) Act Cases: Orissa High Court
The appellants sought exemption from personal attendance in court due to their critical duties, but the trial court rejected their application.
The Orissa High Court has clarified that there is no legal prohibition against granting a request for dispensation of personal attendance under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in cases involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC & ST PoA Act).
Factual Background
The appellants, employees of TP Northern Odisha Distribution Ltd. (TPNODL), were accused of offences under the SC & ST (PoA) Act. They had filed an application seeking exemption from their personal appearance in court, arguing that their duties as public servants engaged in the critical task of electricity distribution required their constant presence at the workplace.
The trial court, however, had dismissed their application, citing that the trial must be conducted under Chapter XVII of the CrPC, which does not typically allow for such dispensations. Additionally, the trial court expressed concerns that granting such a request could result in the accused's identities not being properly verified. The appellants challenged this decision before the High Court.
A Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra set aside an order passed by a Special Judge in Balasore, which had rejected the appellants’ plea for exemption from personal attendance in the trial court. It said, “It is not a fact that such applications are not allowed or that there is any statutory bar in exercise of such power in a case involving the offence under the provisions of S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act.”
Advocate Prasanta Ku. Tripathy appeared for the Appellants and Advocate M.R.Patra appeared for the Respondent.
Reasoning
The Court emphasized that Section 205 of the CrPC grants the trial court the discretion to exempt an accused person from personal attendance in appropriate cases. The High Court held that the lower court had applied this discretion too rigidly and had wrongly dismissed the appellants’ request.
The Court said, “This Court on a combined reading of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act is of the considered view that there exists no embargo in exercise of power conferred by Section 205 Cr.P.C.in trials involving S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act,”
The Court further noted that the appellants, being public servants working for a utility company responsible for electricity distribution, had to attend to public needs. Requiring their repeated appearances in court would not only disrupt their duties but could also affect the provision of essential services to the local community, causing inconvenience to the public. The High Court highlighted that Section 205 of the CrPC is specifically designed to prevent unnecessary harassment of accused individuals, particularly public servants, and to protect their ability to perform their professional duties without undue disruption.
The High Court concluded that the Special Judge’s order was overly harsh and inconsistent with the law, as there was no legal prohibition against granting the appellants’ request for exemption from personal attendance. The Court, therefore, set aside the trial court's order, allowing the appellants' application under Section 205 of the CrPC.
Cause Title: Anup Ghosh & Ors. v. State of Orissa
