Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)
Nagamma N vs B. Meenakshi on 20 January, 2026 cites

Md.Sukur Ali vs State Of Assam on 24 February, 2011

(16) The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1222 (MD SUKUR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the 18 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 absent of the counsel for whatever reason case should not be decided forthwith against the accused, but in such situation the court should appoint counsel who is practicing on the criminal side as amicus curie and decide the case after fixing another date and hearing him. If on the next date of hearing the counsel who ought to have appeared on the previous date, but did no appear, now appear but cannot show sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the earlier date, then he will be precluded from appearing and arguing the case on behalf of the accused, but in such situation it is opened to the accused to either engage another counsel or court may proceed with hearing of the case by the counsel appointed as Amicus Curie. In my humble view, this cited decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the present case. Due to fault of the counsel for the accused, we cannot made the accused to suffer. It was counsel who appeared for the accused failed to cross examine PW1. Hence, the learned Magistrate taken cross examination of PW1 as nil as per order dated 04.01.2023. On perusal of the trial court records, as I already noted, no hearing dates fixed by the trial court to lead defence evidence from the side of the accused. The trial court by 19 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 dispensing with recording of 313 statement, on the same date held that the accused side evidence also closed. In the cheque bounce case filed u/S.138 of NI Act as there is presumption available to the complainant u/S/118 & 139 of NI Act, opportunity should be given to the accused in order to rebut the presumption. I have gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent in CRP No. 664/2020, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that it is for the accused to co-operate for trial and to take opportunity to cross examine witnesses and in spite of several opportunity was given for cross examination and lead its defence evidence, but did not do so. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the matter need not be remanded on the ground that 313 statement was not recorded and the same is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispenses the same having considered the factual aspect of the case. There is no dispute regarding principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in this cited decision. In the present case, on perusal of the trial court records, the case was not at all posted for defence evidence. Hence, no opportunity was given to the accused in order to lead defence evidence. As the accused remained absent, NBW issued against the 20 Cri Appeal No.597/2023 accused, but without recalling NBW the trial court proceeded further and taken cross examination of PW 1 as nil, dispensed of recording of 313 statement and also taken the accused side evidence as closed and then without hearing the main arguments pronounced the judgment. The trial court proceeded with the matter and pronounced the judgment, as if case is exparte case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 156 - Full Document

P B Nandish vs State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2009

He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2023 KAR 781 (NANDISH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, wherein it is held that right to be heard is an essential element of the principle of natural justice and any adjudication made in violation thereof is null and void. In my humble view the principle of these cited decisions are aptly applicable to the present case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - V G Sabhahit - Full Document
1   2 Next