Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)

Noorjahan vs T.T. Moideen And Ors. on 27 June, 2000

9. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist Sh. Mahavir Sharma who had been the counsel for the accused since beginning has undertook that the ld. Trial Court may proceed with the case in the absence of accused as the identity of the accused is not disputed and the accused may be exempted permanently during trial through counsel Sh. Mahavir Sharma or may be exempted on each date on filing of application for personal exemption through counsel explaining the health condition and inability to attend the Court. The Court appreciate the zeal of the ld. Trial Court for providing speedy justice in this case as the case is an old one. The case law on this aspect is also crystal clear as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 1968 Delhi 2002 (v.55 c.52) has categorically ruled that ­ "In summons cases personal appearance of the accused can be dispensed with under Sec.205 of the Cr.P.C. at all future stages of the trial (including the stage of examination of the accused and of pronouncement of judgment) unless it become necessary to send the accused to jail in default of payment of fine which the Court might impose on her in the event of the accused being convicted of the offence for which the accused was being tried". Even the CR No. 33/15 Gurdial Singh Vs. State Page No. 13 of 16 ...14/­ personal appearance of the accused U/S 317 Cr.P.C. can be exempted in warrant cases as the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in 2000 Crl.L.J 4264 in case entitled as Noorjahan Vs. T.T. Moideen has ruled that ­ "The Court has the discretionary power to exempt the personal appearance of the accused U/S 317 Cr.P.C. even in warrant cases and to have the plea of the counsel recorded for and on behalf of the accused, when he is specifically authorised for the purpose and in appropriate cases. If after considering all the aspects of the case, the Court holds that the personal attendance of the accused is not essential, the Court can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and the plea of the counsel can be recorded and on the basis of such plea, the Court can either convict the accused or proceed with trial".
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Munni Begum vs State on 15 April, 1968

i) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in AIR 1968 DELHI 2002 (v.55c.52) in case entitled as Munni Begum Vs. State has ruled that :­ "It was a fit case in which the appearance of the accused be dispensed with at all future stages of the trial (including the stages of examination under S. 342 and of pronouncement of judgment) unless it became necessary to send her to jail in default of payment of fine which the Court might impose on her in the event of her being convicted of the offence for CR No. 33/15 Gurdial Singh Vs. State Page No. 8 of 16 ...9/­ which she was being tried. AIR 1934 All 693(2) and AIR 1958 Cal 431, Dissented from; Case­law discussed".
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1