CrPC Section 205 – Magistrate May Dispense With Personal Attendance Of Accused

In India, the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) is a comprehensive legislation that provides the procedural framework for administration of criminal law. Section 205 of the CrPC empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused during Court hearings. It gives discretionary powers to the Magistrate, on specific grounds, to exempt the accused from personally appearing in Court and instead to appear through his pleader.

Legal Provision Of CrPC Section 205

“Section 205- Magistrate May Dispense With Personal Attendance Of Accused

1. 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.
2. 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.”

Explanation Of CrPC Section 205

• Section 205(1): Dispensation of Personal Attendance of the Accused: Section 205(1) allows a Magistrate to issue summon upon an accused and if he deems it proper to do so, he may, by order in writing, exempt the accused from attending personally, directing him to appear by a legal pleader. This provision is crucial as it addresses cases where the presence of the accused need not be necessarily required. Cases where charges are minor or where the attendance of the accused before Court becomes difficult due to health, geographical, or other legitimate reasons, his attendance can be dispensed with.

This exemption is based on the discretion of a Magistrate who has the duty of considering the case's nature and whether it would be sufficient for a fair trial if the accused were to be represented by a pleader.

• Section 205(2): Magistrate's Direction to Order Personal Appearance: According to Section 205(2) exemption from personal attendance is not absolute. A Magistrate has the power to direct the appearance of an accused person at any stage of the proceedings if necessary for dealing with the case. The Magistrate can pass an order directing the personal appearance of the accused if he believes that the personal appearance of the accused is necessary.

This clause maintains a balance between the flexibility accorded to the accused with respect to the procedural formalities with the need of the Magistrate to ensure that the trial could be conducted properly.

Key Aspects Of Section 205

• Judicial Discretion and Reasonableness: The power to dispense the personal attendance of the accused is not an automatic right but a privilege granted with judicial discretion. To do this, the Magistrate has to exercise it judiciously by considering factors that include:
  • Degree of the offence: For petty offences, personal appearance may be dispensed with as compared to serious cases.
  • The accused's situation: If the accused is sick, old or lives far from the Court, Magistrate may consider these factors before passing his verdict
  • Stage of the proceedings: In the preliminary procedural stages, the presence of the accused might not be necessary as compared to in the final stages of evidence or cross-examination.
• Personal Appearance When Necessary: The flexibility of Section 205 ensures that the accused can be summoned by the Court whenever his appearance seems to be required. For instance,
  • Recording of evidence or examination of a witness: Where the Court feels that the demeanour or response of the accused could be useful in determining the case, their appearance may be so required.
  • Compliance with orders of the Court or clarification: Where some issues require the accused's explanation or testimony, personal appearance will be necessary.
• Role of the Pleader: Section 205 places the responsibility to the pleader for the interest of the accused while appearing before the Court of law. A pleader is obligated to:
  • Attend Court sessions diligently on behalf of the accused.
  • Keep the accused informed about the case's development.
  • Ensure compliance with specific Court directions or orders.

Case Laws On CrPC Section 205

Tgn Kumar vs. State Of Kerala & Ors (2011)

With respect to Section 205 of CrPC, the Court held the following:

• Section 205 CrPC authorises a Magistrate to exempt an accused person from personal appearance in Court.
• An exemption under Section 205 CrPC can be made by the Magistrate keeping in view the nature of case and conduct of the accused.
• Such discretion cannot be restrained by directions of the High Court.
• An order passed by the Magistrate should prevent unnecessary harassment to an accused while protecting the interest of the complainant and ensuring that there is no further delay in the trial.

Puneet Dalmia vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation, Hyderabad (2019)

In this case, the Court examined the scope and ambit of the application of Section 205 of CrPC. The Court held that a Court has the discretion to dispense with the attendance of an accused if it believes that doing so would be in the interest of justice. The Court observed that if the presence of the accused is needed because it would enable the Court to continue with the trial; however, if the trial can continue in his absence, the Court may excuse the attendance of the accused.

The Court observed that if requiring the accused to be present would be too harsh, the Court may provide relief to the accused from attending the prosecution’s proceedings. The Court further held that if the accused is exempted from appearing, then their counsel must be present, and the evidence can be taken in the accused’s absence.

The Court enumerated the following cautions that are to be considered when such relief is granted to an accused:

• The accused should give an undertaking to the Court that he will not dispute his identity as an accused in the case.
• The counsel for the accused should be present in Court
• The accused must agree to the taking of evidence in his absence.

Dr. Hemangini Meher vs. Sangita Naik & Another (2023)

The Court held the followed regarding Section 205 of CrPC:

• Discretionary Power under Section 205: The Court has held that, though Section 205 grants discretion on the part of a Magistrate to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It should exercise its discretion having regard to the circumstances of the case, the condition of the accused, and his presence in relation to the situation.
• Balancing Public Duty and Personal Attendance: In the cases where the accused is a public servant, the Court must balance the need of the public with the mandate of the law.
• Consideration for Exemption: The Court enumerated certain factors that justify the exemption under Section 205:
  • Nature of Offence: The committed offence is not of serious nature.
  • Potential Hardship: The Court must consider the hardship of the accused, if required to be absent from their vocation.
  • Vulnerability: The Court noted that certain individuals, like women, can be afforded flexibility in procedures.
  • Public Service: In the present case, the appellant was a government doctor in gynaecology, and his presence was essential at the hospital.
• Conditions for Dispensing with Attendance: The Court laid down the following conditions for dispensing with the personal appearance of the appellant:
  • Appearance by Counsel: The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant shall be throughout the proceedings.
  • No Objection to Evidence: The accused shall not raise any objection when evidence is accepted in his absence.
  • Appearance When Required: The accused shall personally appear as and when the trial Court deems it fit.

Nawal Kumar Kanodia & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2023)

The Court examined Section 205 of CrPC, which relates to the dispensation of the personal appearance of the accused in Court. It held that though this Section conferred discretionary jurisdiction on the Courts, it should be exercised with caution, particularly in warrant trial cases. The Court held that the primary concern is the administration of criminal justice and that the trial should run more smoothly.

The attendance of the accused is not merely for attendance but to ensure the progression of the trial. If the trial can be conducted in the absence of the accused, the Court may weigh the hardship the accused would face in attending the Court. The Court further noted that an exemption under Section 205 CrPC cannot unnecessarily harass the accused, or prejudice the complainant and should not result in delaying the trial.

Sharif Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2024)

The Court held that the power to order exemption from appearance under Section 205 of CrPC should not be construed restrictively as available only after the accused is granted bail. Meaning that a Magistrate can, at his discretion, dispense with the appearance of an accused in the Court while issuing summons and allow the latter to appear through his pleader. The Court held the following:

• Although CrPC is considered to be exhaustive, there are situations where it does not explicitly address an issue. In such scenarios, the Court has the power to make orders that bring justice.
• The Court relied on the decision of Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. vs. Rani Jethmalani (1978). In this case, it was held that the power to grant exemption from personal appearance shall be exercised liberally when the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it.
• The Court observed that every just and fair procedure shall be considered permissible in the absence of any explicitly or implicitly prohibited by law.

Therefore, applying the above principles, the Court decided that the exemption provision under Section 205 of CrPC shall be liberally construed and can be applied even before the bail has been granted to the accused.

Practical Implications Of CrPC Section 205

• Relief for Persons Suffering Inconvenience: Section 205 affords considerable relief for persons who may suffer inconvenience in attending a Court continuously due to physical, financial, or other constraints. This becomes very handy especially in following cases:
  • Senior citizens or persons with a disability.
  • Residents of remote areas or those living abroad.
  • Accused who are public figures, businesspersons, or professionals with hectic schedules.
• Preventing Harassment or Coercion: This helps in protecting against misuse of the judicial process by unwarranted harassment of the accused, whereby frequent Court appearances may serve as a means to coerce or inconvenience them. It would allow the accused to focus on their defence rather than facing procedural burdens.
• Efficiency in Proceedings before the Courts: Section 205 allows an accused to appear by a pleader, thereby making the process in Courts more productive. This provision reduces congestion in Courts and consequently avoids undue delay due to the physical appearance of the accused for relatively petty matters.

Limitations Of CrPC Section 205

Despite providing flexibility through Section 205, there are a few limitations:

• Possible misuse: Accused can misuse the same to avoid regular appearances at the Courts, which may lead to delay in justice.
• Need for continuous judicial oversight: A Magistrate must be judicious and ensure that this exemption does not interfere with the administration of justice.
• Difficulties in Enforcement: Where the accused is required to attend personally and he does not, the Court would face problems in executing such orders.

Conclusion

Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an effective tool in the process of criminal justice administration. It tries to strike a balance between procedural demands of the Court and rights and comfort of the accused. Under this Section, the Magistrate has been given the right to permit the accused to be represented by a pleader, at his own cost, and the Magistrate has the authority to summon personal attendance whenever required. This dual approach ensures that the Courts remain fair and efficient, accommodating the genuine needs of the accused while safeguarding the interests of justice.