Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Thakur Rabindra Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2019 cites

Ram Harsh Das vs State Of Bihar And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 26 September, 1997

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that discretion is vested with the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and to permit him to appear by his pleader. However, the Magistrate is empowered, at any stage of the proceeding, to direct personal appearance of the accused, if necessary. This Court has time without number considered the scope and application of Section 205 Cr.P.C. and held that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C. are for some Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37059 of 2019 dt.16-09-2019 4/7 purpose and not for fun. The Magistrate has to borne in mind that while dealing with an application in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., the consideration would be whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused. Moreover, the power is always there with the Magistrate to ask the accused, whose personal attendance has been dispensed with under Section Section 205 Cr.P.C., to remain physically present at any stage of the trial if the trial cannot proceed in absence of the accused. Reference may be made to the case of Manish Gai Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(1) PLJR 822, Ram Harsh Das Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502 and Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2005(2) PLJR 505 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.V. Majumdar Vs. Gujrat State Fertilizer Corporation reported in 2005(4) SCC 173.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 25 - B P Sharma - Full Document

Sanjay Kr. Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 21 August, 2014

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that discretion is vested with the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and to permit him to appear by his pleader. However, the Magistrate is empowered, at any stage of the proceeding, to direct personal appearance of the accused, if necessary. This Court has time without number considered the scope and application of Section 205 Cr.P.C. and held that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C. are for some Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37059 of 2019 dt.16-09-2019 4/7 purpose and not for fun. The Magistrate has to borne in mind that while dealing with an application in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., the consideration would be whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused. Moreover, the power is always there with the Magistrate to ask the accused, whose personal attendance has been dispensed with under Section Section 205 Cr.P.C., to remain physically present at any stage of the trial if the trial cannot proceed in absence of the accused. Reference may be made to the case of Manish Gai Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(1) PLJR 822, Ram Harsh Das Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502 and Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2005(2) PLJR 505 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.V. Majumdar Vs. Gujrat State Fertilizer Corporation reported in 2005(4) SCC 173.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - A K Lal - Full Document

S.V. Muzumdar And Ors vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. And ... on 25 April, 2005

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that discretion is vested with the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and to permit him to appear by his pleader. However, the Magistrate is empowered, at any stage of the proceeding, to direct personal appearance of the accused, if necessary. This Court has time without number considered the scope and application of Section 205 Cr.P.C. and held that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C. are for some Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37059 of 2019 dt.16-09-2019 4/7 purpose and not for fun. The Magistrate has to borne in mind that while dealing with an application in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., the consideration would be whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused. Moreover, the power is always there with the Magistrate to ask the accused, whose personal attendance has been dispensed with under Section Section 205 Cr.P.C., to remain physically present at any stage of the trial if the trial cannot proceed in absence of the accused. Reference may be made to the case of Manish Gai Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(1) PLJR 822, Ram Harsh Das Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502 and Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2005(2) PLJR 505 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.V. Majumdar Vs. Gujrat State Fertilizer Corporation reported in 2005(4) SCC 173.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 100 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Manish Gai vs State Of Bihar on 23 November, 2006

7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that discretion is vested with the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and to permit him to appear by his pleader. However, the Magistrate is empowered, at any stage of the proceeding, to direct personal appearance of the accused, if necessary. This Court has time without number considered the scope and application of Section 205 Cr.P.C. and held that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C. are for some Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37059 of 2019 dt.16-09-2019 4/7 purpose and not for fun. The Magistrate has to borne in mind that while dealing with an application in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., the consideration would be whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused. Moreover, the power is always there with the Magistrate to ask the accused, whose personal attendance has been dispensed with under Section Section 205 Cr.P.C., to remain physically present at any stage of the trial if the trial cannot proceed in absence of the accused. Reference may be made to the case of Manish Gai Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007(1) PLJR 822, Ram Harsh Das Vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502 and Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2005(2) PLJR 505 as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.V. Majumdar Vs. Gujrat State Fertilizer Corporation reported in 2005(4) SCC 173.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next