S. 205 CrPC | Courts Should Be More Careful While Considering Plea For Exemption From Personal Appearance By Govt. Servant/Doctor: Orissa HC

The Orissa High Court observed that Courts should exercise caution and strive to strike a delicate balance when the attendance of a public servant is sought and more particularly with the Government servants who are enjoined with a duty to safeguard the lives and health of people.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by a Government Doctor, specialised in Gynecology, accused of offences under Sections 341/323 of the I.P.C. read with section 3(2)(va) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act, challenging the rejection of the Petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. filed before the Trial Court seeking dispensation of her personal appearance in the case.  

Advocate Devashis Panda appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sonak Mishra appeared for the Respondents.

The appellant had in her Section 205 CrP.C. application relied on the grounds that she is a public servant and attends patients in all emergency and non-emergency cases and her attendance in the field in attending patients is essential and therefore, her personal appearance may be dispensed with.

However the Trial Court, in the impugned order, held that nowhere in the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that the appellant, being a medical officer, remains busy round the clock in her profession and no single evidence has been supplied to prove the averments taken in the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court had also stated that allowing the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. would be like granting a blank cheque, which would affect the process of the Court in framing of charge and proceedings in which the presence of the appellant would be highly required. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant under section 205 of Cr.P.C. was rejected. 

The appellant before the High Court submitted that her attendance for the public field is very much necessary and therefore, in a minor case of this nature, it was not proper for the learned trial Court to disallow the petition and insist on the personal appearance of the appellant, particularly when an undertaking was given by the appellant to appear before the trial Court as and when required.

Considering the submissions, the High Court observed, "The power under section 205 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised considering the circumstances of the case, conditions of the accused and the necessity for his personal attendance etc. The Magistrate cannot be arbitrary or capricious while using his judicial discretion and must adjudge the circumstances with his judicial conscience, weighing all the relevant factors, so as to come to a definite conclusion if personal attendance of an accused is indispensable before the Court."

On the aspect of Government servants and doctors, the Court further observed, "The Court ought to be even more careful and circumspect when attendance of a public servant is sought for. The Presiding Officer of the Court has a bounden duty to balance the mandate of the law and requirements of general public and then decide the fate of a petition filed under section 205 of the Cr.P.C. by an accused who also happens to be a public servant, more particularly, the Government servants who are enjoined with a duty to safeguard the lives and health of people."

The Court also relied upon the precedent set in the Supreme Court case of R. Annapurna v. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry, where a compassionate approach was embraced, particularly in cases involving women accused persons. In the said judgment, the Court had demonstrated a lenient stance and allowed for the dispensation of their personal presence. 

"Though it is no doubt true that every accused, irrespective of gender, race, caste, creed and other considerations, is equally accountable in the eye of law, but some procedural leniency can be afforded to people who are considered to be vulnerable", observed the Court in its order.

Accordingly, the Court held that in view of the nature of the accusation against the appellant, the age of the appellant and the fact that she is a lady and a public servant and a doctor, whose presence is very much necessary in the hospital,  the grounds assigned for rejection of the petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. passed by the Special Judge are not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. 

Cause Title: Dr. Hemangini Meher v. Sangita Naik & another [CRLA No.1065 of 2023]

Click here to read/download the Order