Dispense prayer not grounds to delay trial, look for alternative procedure, Madras HC tells special court

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court held that the special courts must practice extreme care while handling dispense with petitions filed by the accused persons under code of criminal procedures (CrPC) provisions and ensure the conduct of the trial is not affected by it by resorting to alternative procedures.

The special court could have exercised its discretion and proceeded with the trial, instead of shifting the reason on the appellant for delaying the trial, held a division bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar while allowing an appeal moved by an accused assailing the order of the special court dealing National Investigation Agency (NIA) related cases.

The bench also clarified that the special court for NIA cases refrains from arbitrary exercise of power when dealing with petitions from accused persons seeking to dispense with his presence during the trial.

The appellant, Mohammed Faruk, who was booked and arrested under several sections of the IPC, including 302 and sections 18 and 16 (1) (a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, moved an appeal challenging the non-bailable warrant issued against him by the special court for NIA cases, Poonamallee.

The appellant allegedly failed to appear during the trial and filed a petition under section 317 of CrPC, alleging illness, seeking to dispense his presence. However, the special court dismissed his petition, stating that he had already filed similar petitions, which delayed the trial proceedings. Further, the special court issued a non-bailable warrant against the appellant. On the same day, the appellant appeared before the court and sought to recall the non-bailable warrant.

The special court refused the request and observed that the appellant had been adopting delaying tactics in completing the trial and remanded him in judicial custody.

Assailing the order the appellant moved HC, seeking to set aside the special court order. Upon hearing the appeal the bench held, "In the past month, we are confronted with several orders of this special court, rejecting petitions filed by the accused seeking dispense with a presence on the ground alleging dilatory tactics adopted by the accused."

Although the special court was vested with discretionary power dealing with the petitions "it requires to be exercised judicially, with extreme care and caution," held the bench.