Supreme Court Allows Exemption from Personal Appearance in Corruption Case: Puneet Dalmia vs. CBI (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1197

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., M. R. Shah, J.

Can an accused be exempted from appearing in court for every hearing? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where an accused, a director of several companies, sought exemption from personal appearance due to business commitments. The court considered whether the accused could be allowed to be represented by his lawyer, while ensuring the trial’s progress. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice M. R. Shah.

Case Background

The appellant, Puneet Dalmia, was accused No. 3 in a case related to a charge-sheet bearing C.C. No. 12 of 2013, pending before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. He was summoned by the trial court on 13 May 2013 for offenses under Section 120-B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 9, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and (s) 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was granted bail on 7 June 2019. However, he was required to attend the trial court every Friday. The appellant, being a director on the boards of several companies, submitted that his business commitments and the need to travel from Delhi to Hyderabad every Friday caused undue hardship and financial loss.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant applied to the trial court under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for dispensation of his personal appearance. The trial court dismissed this application, stating that the grounds cited by the appellant were not sufficient to grant an exemption. The High Court of Judicature at Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad also dismissed the appellant’s petition, upholding the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the power of the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. Section 205(1) of the CrPC states:

“Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.”

Section 205(2) of the CrPC states:

“But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.”

The court also considered Section 317 of the CrPC, which allows the court to proceed with the trial even in the absence of the accused, provided the accused is represented by a lawyer.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that he had been attending the trial court every Friday since 2013 and that the trial was not likely to conclude soon due to multiple charge sheets and numerous accused.
• The appellant was willing to file an undertaking that his non-appearance would not hinder the trial, and he would appear through his advocate.
• The appellant also stated that he would remain present when required by the court.
• The appellant emphasized his business commitments and the hardship of traveling from Delhi to Hyderabad every Friday.
• The appellant cited the cases of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401 and Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608, where the Supreme Court had allowed exemptions from personal appearance.
• It was also pointed out that two other co-accused had been granted exemption from personal appearance, one by the High Court and another by the Trial Court.

Respondent’s Arguments (CBI):

• The CBI contended that the grounds for exemption were not valid under Section 205 of the CrPC.
• The CBI argued that the appellant faced serious charges, and granting exemption could delay the trial.
• The CBI pointed out the High Court’s observation that the appellant might not cooperate with the trial if exempted.
• The CBI distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, arguing that those cases involved less serious offenses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court and the Trial Court were justified in rejecting the appellant’s application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Cited:

• Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401 – Supreme Court of India
  
  This case was cited to emphasize that a court can dispense with the personal attendance of an accused if it serves the interest of justice, and that the court can grant relief if insisting on personal attendance would be too harsh. The court also noted that evidence can be taken in the absence of the accused if their counsel is present.
• Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608 – Supreme Court of India
  
  This case was also cited to support the argument that courts have the power to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused in appropriate cases.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
  
  This section empowers a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit them to appear by their pleader.
• Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
  
  This section empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with the trial in the presence of the counsel.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401: The Supreme Court followed this authority, reiterating that the court can dispense with the personal appearance of an accused if it serves the interest of justice. It also highlighted that the court can grant relief if insisting on personal attendance would be too harsh. The court emphasized the following from the judgment: “The normal rule is that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused. However, even in the absence of the accused such evidence can be taken but then his counsel must be present in the court, provided he has been granted exemption from attending the court. The concern of the criminal court should primarily be the administration of criminal justice. For that purpose the proceedings of the court in the case should register progress.”
• Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar (2018) 4 SCC 608: The Supreme Court followed this authority to reinforce the court’s power to dispense with personal appearance in appropriate cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the administration of justice with the practical difficulties faced by the accused. The court emphasized that the progress of the trial should be the primary concern and that personal appearance should not be insisted upon if it causes undue hardship. The court also considered the fact that the appellant had been attending the court regularly since 2013 and had not tried to delay the proceedings. The court also noted that other co-accused were granted exemption in similar circumstances.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of Section 205 of the CrPC and the precedents. The court rejected a strict interpretation that would mandate personal appearance in all cases, especially when it causes undue hardship. Instead, the court chose an interpretation that balances the need for the trial’s progress with the practical difficulties faced by the accused. The court emphasized that the primary concern should be the administration of justice and that the proceedings should register progress, as stated in Bhaskar Industries Ltd.: “The concern of the criminal court should primarily be the administration of criminal justice. For that purpose the proceedings of the court in the case should register progress.” The final decision was reached by allowing the exemption with conditions to ensure that the trial would not be delayed.

Key Takeaways

• Courts have the power to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused under Section 205 of the CrPC if it serves the interest of justice.
• The primary concern of the court should be the administration of justice and the progress of the trial.
• Personal appearance should not be insisted upon if it causes undue hardship to the accused, especially if the accused is willing to be represented by a lawyer and does not object to the recording of evidence in their absence.
• Courts can impose conditions when granting exemptions to ensure the trial’s progress, such as requiring the accused to file an undertaking and appear when specifically required by the court.
• The principles established in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. and Rameshwar Yadav continue to be relevant in determining whether to grant exemptions from personal appearance.
• This judgment may lead to more courts considering the practical difficulties faced by accused individuals, especially those who have to travel long distances for court appearances.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

1. The appellant must give an undertaking to the trial court that he would not dispute his identity and that his advocate, Sri Bharadwaj Reddy, would appear on his behalf on each hearing date.
2. The appellant shall not object to the recording of evidence in his absence.
3. The appellant shall not seek any adjournment.
4. The appellant must appear before the trial court for the purpose of framing of charges and on other hearing dates when the trial court insists on his appearance.
5. If the advocate fails to appear or any adjournment is sought, the trial court can exercise its powers under Section 205(2) CrPC and direct the personal appearance of the appellant on each hearing date.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that courts can dispense with the personal appearance of an accused under Section 205 of the CrPC if it serves the interest of justice and if the accused faces undue hardship. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. and Rameshwar Yadav, clarifying that the progress of the trial should be the primary concern and that personal appearance should not be insisted upon if it is too harsh on the accused. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reiterates the importance of balancing the need for the trial’s progress with the practical difficulties faced by the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Puneet Dalmia, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court. The Court granted the appellant exemption from personal appearance, subject to certain conditions. This judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing the administration of justice with the practical difficulties faced by the accused, reiterating that courts can dispense with personal appearance if it serves the interest of justice and ensures the trial’s progress.