PUNEET DALMIA versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 16-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
PUNEET DALMIA
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD
(Criminal Appeal No. 1901 of 2019)
DECEMBER 16, 2019
  [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.205 – Appellant is
accused no.3 in the case pertaining to the charge-sheet bearing
C.C. No. 12 of 2013 pending before the Principal Special Judge
for CBI Cases, Hyderabad – Granted bail – However, pursuant to
the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant is required to
attend the Trial Court on every Friday – Appellant made application
before the Trial Court u/s.205 for dispensing with his personal
appearance/attendance –Dismissed – Confirmed by the High Court
– On appeal, held: Appellant, a permanent resident of Delhi, is the
Director on the Boards of several companies and has been appearing
before the Trial Court on each and every Friday since 2013 –
Distance between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1500 kms
– Nothing is on record that at any point of time he has tried to delay
the trial – In view of principles for grant of exemption as observed
by Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Case, the appellant can
be granted the exemption on certain conditions and on filing an
undertaking, by which the interest of justice can be protected and
grant of exemption may not ultimately affect the conclusion of the
trial at the earliest – Further, in case of other two co-accused in
cases arising of the same FIR, the applications for exemption on
the very same grounds were allowed, one by the High Court and
another by the Trial Court – Judgment passed by the High Court as
well as the Trial Court rejecting the appellant’s application u/s.205
are quashed and set aside – Thus, application of the appellant for
dispensing with his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates
of adjournments and permitting his counsel to appear on his behalf
is allowed, conditionally – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B r/w ss.420,
409 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.9, 12, 13(2) r/w
13(1)(c) and (d).
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 134
134
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellant is required to appear before the
Trial Court on every Friday and the appellant as such is appearing
before the Trial Court on each and every Friday since 2013.
Nothing is on record that at any point of time the appellant has
tried to delay the trial. The appellant is represented through his
counsel. The appellant is a permanent resident of Delhi. He is
the Director on the Boards of several companies. The distance
between Delhi and Hyderabad is approximately 1500 kms.
However, the principles for grant of exemption as observed by
this Court in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. can be made
applicable to the facts of the case on hand also and the appellant
can be granted the exemption on certain conditions and on filing
an undertaking by the appellant, by which the interest of justice
can be protected and grant of exemption may not ultimately affect
the conclusion of the trial at the earliest. Nothing is on record
that, at any point of time, any effort has been made by the appellant
to stall/delay the trial. In case of other two co-accused in cases
arising of the same fir, the applications for exemption on the very
same grounds have been allowed – one by the high court and
another by the trial court. [Para 6][140-D-E; 142F-H; 143-A]
1.2 The impugned Judgment and order passed by the High
Court as well as that of the Trial Court rejecting the application
submitted by the appellant under Section 205 Cr.P.C. are hereby
quashed and set aside and consequently the application submitted
by the appellant to dispense with his appearance before the Trial
Court on all dates of adjournments and permitting his counsel to
appear on his behalf is allowed on the following conditions: (1)
That the appellant shall give an undertaking to the Trial Court
that he would not dispute his identity in the case and that the
advocate who is permitted to represent the appellant, would
appear before the Trial Court on his behalf on each and every
date of hearing and that he shall not object recording of the
evidence in his absence and that no adjournment shall be asked
for on behalf of the appellant and/or his advocate;
PUNEET DALMIA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, HYDERABAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
(2) That the appellant shall appear before the Trial Court
for the purpose of framing

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.