Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Indian Kanoon - in Praveen Sethi vs Sh. Sanjeev Baweja on 21 August, 2018Matching Fragments
3. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contentions:-
(a) Judgment dated 17.12.2008 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no. 2055 of 2007 Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, as reported in Indian Kanoon.
(b) Judgment dated 04.04.2012 passed by Hon'ble Supreme court in Appeal (Crl.) 612/2012 Bhushan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., as reported in Indian Kanoon.
6. I have found that in Judgment dated 17.09.2004 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Crl.) 1253/2002 Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., as reported in Indian Kanoon, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"From the above, it is clear that the larger Bench of this Court in Adalat Prasad's case did not accept the correctness of the law laid down by CR NO. 271/2018 Praveen Sethi vs. Sanjeev Baweja 3 this Court in K.M. Mathew's case. Therefore, reliance on K.M. Mathew's case by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant cannot be accepted nor can the argument that Adalat Prasad's case requires reconsideration be accepted. The next challenge of the learned counsel for the appellant made to the finding of the High Court that once a plea is recoded in a summons case it is not open to the accused person to seek a discharge cannot also be accepted. The case involving a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code which does not contemplates a stage of discharge like Section 239 which provides for a discharge in a warrant case. Therefore, in our opinion the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion. As observed by us in Adalat Prasad's case the only remedy available to an aggrieved accused to challenge an order in an interlocutory stage is the extraordinary remedy under Section 482 of the Code and not by way of an application to recall the summons or to seek CR NO. 271/2018 Praveen Sethi vs. Sanjeev Baweja 4 discharge which is not contemplated in the trial of a summons case."