In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Registrar General to seek an explanation from a magistrate for passing contradictory orders in similar cases. The court’s decision came while hearing an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the case of Mohammad Saquib Khan vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Application U/S 482 No. – 6051 of 2024).
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, who presided over the case, quashed the lower court’s order dated June 24, 2024, which had rejected the applicant’s plea for exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 CrPC.
The case revolves around an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Mohammad Saquib Khan in October 2023. Khan, a resident of Bengaluru, was summoned to appear before a court in Lucknow, approximately 2,500 kilometers away.
The key legal issues in this case were:
1. The interpretation and application of Sections 205 and 317 of the CrPC regarding exemption from personal appearance.
2. The stage at which such exemption can be sought.
3. The discretionary power of the magistrate in granting exemption.
Justice Bhatia observed that both Sections 205 and 317 of the CrPC empower the magistrate to grant exemption from personal appearance, either at the inquiry stage or during the trial. The court emphasized that these provisions should be interpreted liberally, as stated in the Supreme Court judgment of Sharif Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and another (2024 SCC Online SC 726).
The High Court noted, “Power to grant exemption from appearance either under Section 205 or Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised liberally as observed in Para 47 of the judgment in the case of Sharif Ahmad (supra)”.
The court criticized the lower court’s rejection of Khan’s application, stating that the reasoning was “wholly erroneous” and “contrary to the mandate of law”. It directed the trial court to pass a fresh order granting exemption on regular dates, with the provision to summon the applicant for crucial proceedings like framing of charges.
Importantly, Justice Bhatia highlighted the inconsistency in the magistrate’s decision-making. The court noted that the same magistrate had allowed a similar application in another case (Criminal Case No.1417 of 2018) on June 3, 2024, while rejecting Khan’s plea on June 24, 2024.
Also Read
Expressing concern over this discrepancy, the High Court directed: “Registrar General is directed to call for a report from the court concerned explaining the manner in which two diametrically opposite orders have been passed while exercising the jurisdiction in the same set of facts”.
The case was argued by Tamjeed Ahmad and Shailendra Yadav for the applicant, while Shiv P. Shukla represented the Enforcement Directorate.
