Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 472 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. Ors on 27 August, 2001

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 11 October, 2022

In the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered about recording of the evidence in presence of the accused at paragraph no.14 of the said judgment, and after referring to section 205 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is within the powers of the learned magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations to him, and the comparative advantage would be less: paragraph no.14 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

(1) A.K. Pandya vs . State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 29 April, 2014

10. The court below in the order dated 7.7.2003 also stated that during the course of hearing the counsel for the complainant has filed the photocopy of the misc. petition by the accused petitioners showing that most of the accused petitioners have shown themselves to be resident of Jaipur. It was observed by the court below that on account of distance from their residence outside Jaipur the accused petitioners are not in a position to reach the court and will feel uncomfortable. In relation to other grounds like old age persons and ailments, the trial court observed that the accused petitioners have not produced any documentary proof in support of their contentions in order to get exemption from personal appearance during the course of trial. The court below also observed that as per the guide lines laid down in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim and Apperals (2001)7 SCC 401 has not been made out in the instant matter. In these circumstances the court below rejected the application for personal exemption filed by the accused petitioners on 7.7.2003. I have again and again gone through the findings given bythe court below in the impugned order in the light of the rulings quoted above of the Apex Court and High Courts. In my view the order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the court below does not call for any interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. I am in fully agreement with the findings arrived at by the court below. In my view the criminal misc. petitions filed by the accused petitioners deserve to be rejected.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sheela Kumar & Ors vs State Of Bihar Thru.Vigilance on 20 March, 2009

In my view the plea of learned counsel for the Vigilance is fit to be rejected. The reliance of counsel for the Vigilance on the decision of Bhaskar Industries Ltd (supra) is also misplaced. In order to appreciate the objection it would be relevant to deal with section 397(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. Section 397(1) confers power of revision on High Court and Sessions Judge. Section 397(2) states that power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceeding.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S P Singh - Full Document

Shailesh Kumar Singh And Anr vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 January, 2024

24. It emerges that in a case where summons has been issued to the accused persons, the accused may be exempted from his personal appearance. Moreover, the accused can be allowed to be represented through his counsel even at the stage of the first appearance as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Case (supra). In other words, the accused is not required to take bail first and then file the application for exemption from personal appearance.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next