TGN KUMAR versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 14-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i -
A 
B 
c 
• 
;. .. 
[2011} 1 S.C.R. 436 
TGN KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1854 of 2008) 
JANUARY 14, 2011 
[D.K. JAIN, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND 
H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
Sections 205, 313, 482 and 483 rlw Article 227 of the 
Constitution - Powers of High Court - Complaint for offence 
punishable u/s 138 of NI Act - Petition u/s 482 by accused 
before High Court praying for dispensing with personal 
0 presence before Magistrate - General directions by High 
Court to all criminal courts as regards cases ipvolving 
offences technical in nature and not involving moral·turpitude, 
to invoke the discretion u/s 205 CrPC and a further cJirecJiorr 
that only a summons shall be issued at the first instance -
E HELD: The satisfaction whether or not an accused deserves 
to be exempted from personal attendance has to be of the 
Magistrate and none else and this discretion cannot be 
circumscribed by any general directions - Similarly, the 
direction to accept and consider written statement of the 
accused is not in accord with the language of s.313 CrPC nor 
F with the dictum laid down by Supreme Court - Inherent powers 
· of High Court u/s 482 and power of superintendence under 
Article 227 of the Constitution have to be exercised sparingly 
and only in appropriate cases - In the instant case, High Court 
exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC and/or Article 227 of 
G the Constitution in laying down the general directions which 
are inconsistent with the clear language of ss. 205 and 313 
CrPC - Impugned order containing general directions set 
aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Judicial 
propriety - Administration of Criminal Justice. 
H- _ · . _ 
_ 
436 
.. 
TGN KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
437 
JUDICIAL PROPRIETY: 
A 
~ 
High court issuing general directions as regards 
dispensing with personal presence of accused u/s 205 and 
to accept written statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC -
Held: In light of guidelines laid down by Supreme Cowt, further 
B 
directions on same issue laid down by· High Court are 
uncalled for- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 205, 
313 and 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227. 
?. 
The appellant filed a complaint uls 138 of the 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act). The accused, c 
on being summoned by the Magistrate, filed a petition 
before the High Court uls 482 CrPC, inter alia, praying for 
dispensing with her personal appearance before the 
Magistrate. The Single Judge of the High Court, while 
allowing the petition and permitting the accused to 
D 
I); 
appear before the trial court through her counsel, issued 
general directions to all the criminal courts as regards 
"holding of trials, particularly, in cases involving offences 
u/s 138 of the N.I. Act as also in all other cases involving 
offences technical in nature and not involving moral 
E 
turpitude. 
The appeal filed by the complainant was listed before 
~ a Division Bench of the Supreme Court which felt the 
necessity of referring the matter to a larger Bench and, 
F 
thus, the appeal was referred to the three-Judge Bench 
to consider the question: whether the High Court in 
exercise of its jurisdiction u/ss 482 and 483 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and/or under Article 227 of 
the Constitution of India could issue guidelines directing 
G 
all courts taking: cognizance of offences u/s 138 of the N 
,#-
I Act, inter alia, to invoke the discretion u/s 205 of the 
Code and only with a further direction that summons u/s 
205 shall be issued at the first instance. 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Answering the question in the negative and allowing 
the appeal, the Court 
,,.._: 
HELD: 
8 
1.1 Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 confers a discretion on the court to exempt an 
accused from personal appearance till such time his 
appearance is considered by the court to be not 
necessary during the trial. It is manifest from a plain 
.'I' 
reading of the provision that while considering an 
c application u/s 205 of the Code, the Magistrate has to 
bear in mind the nature of the case as also the conduct 
of the person summoned. He shall examine whether any 
useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal 
attendance of the accused or whether the progress of the 
D trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence. 
Therefore, the satisfaction whether or not an accused 
;i(' 
dese

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