In a significant ruling that underscores the judicial system’s emphasis on practical justice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed an elderly British citizen, Diljit Kaur, exemption from personal appearance in a criminal case. Justice Sandeep Moudgil delivered the decision in Diljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-64176-2023), citing that the presence of the accused in court should be required only when indispensable to the trial.
Background of the Case
Diljit Kaur, the petitioner, is facing criminal proceedings related to FIR No. 59, dated March 9, 2019, registered in Ludhiana. She has been on regular bail and has previously been permitted to travel abroad for medical treatment. Citing her advanced age and ongoing health issues, Kaur filed a petition seeking permanent exemption from court appearances under Sections 205 and 317 of the CrPC, alongside permission to remain in the UK during the trial.
The lower courts had denied her request for permanent exemption, citing procedural concerns, including doubts over the authenticity of certain medical documents. Kaur’s counsel, Mr. Harsh Chopra, argued that her inability to attend due to health reasons should not hinder the trial’s progress as she could be represented by her counsel.
Key Legal Issues
The High Court addressed two critical legal questions:
1. Whether exemption from personal appearance could be granted to an accused under Sections 205 and 317 of the CrPC.
2. Under what conditions an accused can stay abroad without compromising the integrity of the trial.
Justice Moudgil observed that Sections 205 and 317 empower courts to grant such exemptions if the accused’s personal appearance is not essential for the trial or if compelling attendance would cause undue hardship.
Observation and Decision
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, while delivering the judgment, analyzed the discretionary powers vested in courts under Sections 205 and 317 of the CrPC. The court underlined that these provisions are designed to balance the accused’s convenience and the judicial process’s efficiency.
Justice Moudgil elaborated that the “presence of the accused is not merely to mark attendance but to ensure justice is facilitated.” This principle, the court stressed, applies particularly to cases where the accused is elderly, unwell, or otherwise unable to attend due to genuine hardships. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in S.V. Muzumdar v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., the court held that exemptions could be granted where the trial’s progress would not be hindered by the absence of the accused.
The judgment also referred to parameters set by earlier decisions, which recommend liberal usage of exemption provisions for women, the elderly, and those facing undue hardships. The court acknowledged that the trial courts had erred in their approach by rigidly denying Kaur’s request, despite her compliance with earlier court orders and genuine medical concerns.
In its decision, the High Court not only set aside the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, and the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, but also provided a detailed framework to ensure that the trial could proceed efficiently:
1. Exemption from Personal Appearance:
– Kaur was exempted from personally attending court proceedings, provided she is represented by her legal counsel.
– The court noted that this measure would reduce unnecessary strain on the judicial system by minimizing footfall in courts for routine matters.
2. Conditions for Exemption:
– Kaur was required to give an undertaking that she would not dispute her identity as the accused.
– She consented to evidence being recorded in her absence and confirmed her willingness to appear if explicitly summoned for critical proceedings.
– Her counsel was directed to ensure that there would be no unnecessary delays attributable to her absence.
3. Permission to Stay Abroad:
– Taking into account her age and medical condition, the court allowed Kaur to remain abroad during the pendency of the trial. However, the court imposed strict conditions to ensure that this concession would not impede the trial’s progress.
4. Safeguards for Trial Efficiency:
– The court empowered the trial court to revoke the exemptions and permissions if it found that Kaur was attempting to delay or obstruct the proceedings.
Justice Moudgil emphasized that such an approach respects the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. He observed that insisting on the accused’s presence at every stage, when their absence does not impact the trial’s progress, is counterproductive and contrary to the principles of justice.
The court further noted, “If courts become liberal in granting exemption from personal appearance, it would reduce avoidable footfall in courts and facilitate the effective disposal of trials. Courts should only order the appearance of the accused when it becomes indispensable.”
Legal Representation:
– Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate.
– Respondent: Mr. Sukhsandesh Singh Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Case Citation: CRM-M-64176-2023, Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:117196.
