Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 674 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 January, 2021
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 1834 of 2020
Raghavachari Srinivisan & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee,
Mr. Ritoban Sarkar,
Mr. Soumya Nag,
Mr. Subhadeep Adhikari
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anirban Ray,
Ms. Sreeparna Das,
Mr. Anirudha Agarwalla,
Mr. B. Sharma
Heard on: 28.01.2021
Judgment on: 28.01.2021
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application challenging the order dated
4.3.2020
passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions
Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision no.302 of 2019 thereby
dismissing the same and affirming the order dated 5.9.2019
passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court,
Calcutta in Case No. CS/30048 of 2019 pending before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta under
Sections 138/141 of the N.I. Act.
Mr. Banrjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners' application
under Section 205 of the Code was allowed on consent on
5.9.2019. However, the order was subject to the condition that
the accused would remain present during plea, the examination
of the accused under Section 313 of the Code and the delivery
of the judgment. The petitioners challenged this order on the
point of imposition of such condition before the learned
revisional court. However, their application was dismissed. The
petitioners rely on the decision of this Court passed in Shaleen
Khemani and Ors. -vs- The State of West Bengal and Ors.,
MANU/WB/1355/2017 and submit that in the facts of the
present case, the present petitioners should be allowed the
privilege of exemption from personal attendance under Section
205 of the Code, even at the time of taking plea and the
examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code.
Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant/opposite party, upon instructions, submits as
follows. The complainant/opposite party has no objection if the
prayer of the petitioners for being allowed to be represented
under Section 205 of the Code at the time of recording of plea
and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code.
In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and
direct that the petitioners shall be exempted from personal
appearance and be allowed to be represented under Section 205
of the Code, even during recording of plea and the examination
of the accused under Section 313 of the Code.
The petitioners shall not raise any prejudice at a
subsequent stage of the proceeding over this issue.
With these observations, the revisional application is
disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for,
be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
43/Ct.32 rkd
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!