Salim Vs. State of Rajasthan

Salim vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 17, 1992

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762446

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/762446
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.L. Tibrewal, J.
Decided On: Jul 17, 1992
Case Number: S.B. Crim. Misc. Petition No. 830 of 1992
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 205--Personal Attendance-Exemption from--Petitioner left India without permission of Court--Trial yet to begin--Petitioner to suffer heavy loss of he did not go--Held, Court should take sympathetic view and application should not be rejected on technical ground.;Trial of the case ha...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Salim

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1992(3)WLC94; 1992WLN(UC)350

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 205--personal attendance-exemption from--petitioner left india without permission of court--trial yet to begin--petitioner to suffer heavy loss of he did not go--held, court should take sympathetic view and application should not be rejected on technical ground.;trial of the case has yet to begin and it will take some time. it is true that the petitioner left india without seeking prior permission or order from the trial court, but, it was due to urgency. the petitioner had already purchased the air-ticket and had spent huge amount and in case he had not gone, he would have suffered a great loss and the chances of his not getting the job in future were there. the petitioner, being an unemployed youngman, was in dire necessity to get a job to earn his livelihood. in my view, on the technical ground that the petitioner did not seek prior permission of the court, the application for exemption from personal attendance should not have been rejected by the court. in such cases, the court should take sympathetic and humanitarian approach.;the application filed by the petitioner for his exemption from personal attendance is allowed.;petition allowed - - in such cases, the court should take sympathetic and humanitarian approach keeping in view the employment conditions prevailing in the countiy, specially in an under-developed district like jhunjhunu.n.l. tibrewal, j.1. this petition is against the order dated 4.3.91 of learned sessions judge, jhunjhunu in sessions case no. 56/90.2. the necessary facts for filing this petition may be given:the petitioner and six other co-accused were committed to the court of sessions judge, jhunjhunu for the offence under section 307 ipc. as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned sessions judge has still to frame the charges after hearing the arguments and thereafter, the trial in the case shall commence. the petitioner was an unemployed youngman, and was in search of some job for his livelihood. in the gulf countries, a large number of youngmen from the state of rajasthan have gone, where they are provided employment. the district of jhunjhunu is semi-desert having negligible opportunities of getting employment. in the country, specially in undeveloped districts unemployment is becoming an alarming problem. thousands of young unemployed persons are in search of jobs and are getting frustration for want of jobs.3. it appears that the petitioner made efforts to get, a job in the sultanat of oman (gulf country) as a helper and mason. on 7.2.91, he moved an application in the sessions court to exempt his personal attendance from appearance in the case as he had got a job for two years in the sultanat of oman. he had also mentioned in the application that air tickets were purchased by him and he also got visa for the same. the application could not be decided by the court in time and the petitioner went to the aforesaid country. the application was decided by the court on 4.3.91 and the same was rejected.4. while rejecting the application, the learned judge also initiated proceedings under section 446 cr.p.c. and ordered to issue a non-bailable warrant for securing the attendance of the petitioner.5. the learned counsel has referred an order of this court dated 24.1.85, in s.b. cr. misc. petition no. 43/85 wherein, in similar circumstances, this court.....

Full Judgment

N.L. Tibrewal, J.

1. This petition is against the order dated 4.3.91 of learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 56/90.

2. The necessary facts for filing this petition may be given:

The petitioner and six other co-accused were committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for the offence under Section 307 IPC. As informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge has still to frame the charges after hearing the arguments and thereafter, the trial in the case shall commence. The petitioner was an unemployed youngman, and was in search of some job for his livelihood. In the Gulf countries, a large number of youngmen from the State of Rajasthan have gone, where they are provided employment. The District of Jhunjhunu is semi-desert having negligible opportunities of getting employment. In the country, specially in undeveloped districts unemployment is becoming an alarming problem. Thousands of young unemployed persons are in search of jobs and are getting frustration for want of jobs.

3. It appears that the petitioner made efforts to get, a job in the Sultanat of Oman (Gulf Country) as a helper and mason. On 7.2.91, he moved an application in the Sessions Court to exempt his personal attendance from appearance in the case as he had got a job for two years in the Sultanat of Oman. He had also mentioned in the application that air tickets were purchased by him and he also got visa for the same. The application could not be decided by the court in time and the petitioner went to the aforesaid country. The application was decided by the court on 4.3.91 and the same was rejected.

4. While rejecting the application, the learned Judge also initiated proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and ordered to issue a non-bailable warrant for securing the attendance of the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel has referred an order of this Court dated 24.1.85, in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 43/85 wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court allowed the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and granted exemption to the accused. It is not disputed before me that if the trial court decides to frame charge/charges against the petitioner, the same can be read over to his counsel and the plea can also be recorded. The identity of the petitioner in the case is not in dispute. Justice Mr. V.S. Dave, while deciding the above Cr. Misc. Petition observed as under:

In the light of the cases cited above I quash the order of the learned Judge, dated Oct. 15, 1984.1 may however, make it clear that whenever the Court finds it essential that the presence of the accused was absolutely necessary sufficient opportunity should be given to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to seek the presence of his client in the Court.

6. As stated earlier, trial of the case has yet to begin and it will take some time. It is true that the petitioner left India without seeking prior permission or order from the trial court, but, it was due to urgency. The petitioner had already purchased the air-ticket and had spent huge amount and in case he had not gone, he would have suffered a great loss and the chances of his not getting the job in future were there. The petitioner, being an unemployed youngman, was in dire necessity to get a job to earn his livelihood. In my view, on the technical ground that the petitioner did not seek prior permission of the court, the application for exemption from personal attendance should not have been rejected by the court. In such cases, the court should take sympathetic and humanitarian approach keeping in view the employment conditions prevailing in the countiy, specially in an under-developed district like Jhunjhunu.

7. Consequently, I allow this petition. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 4.3.91 is hereby quashed. The application filed by the petitioner for his exemption from personal attendance is allowed. He may appear in the trial court through his counsel. It is however, made clear that whenever the court finds that the presence of the petitioner is absolutely necessary, it shall so direct to his counsel, giving sufficient time to the petitioner to appear in the court.

The petition is allowed as indicated above.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1992 Same Parties Salim vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.L. Tibrewal, J.

Criminal