Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Naresh Ch. Nath vs The State on 26 May, 1969
The question as to under which circumstances personal attendance of ah accused can be dispensed with had been considered by this Court in the decisions cited supra as well as in Ramesh Ch. Lath v. State (1992) 5 OCR 97 : (1992 Cri LJ 2263), Bikram v. State (1994) 7 OCR 721, Radhanath v. Babulal (1986) 62 Cut LT 445, and last but not the least, Surojit v. Sanatan, (1999) 17 OCR 473. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that the power under Section 205(1), Cr. P. C. can be exercised by a Magistrate not only at the stage of issuance of summons to the accused, but also at subsequent stage even after issuance of N. B. W. Law is no more reintegrate that even if an application under Section 205, Cr. P.. C. is rejected at an earlier stage, such petition can be allowed at a subsequent stage by invoking the provisions of Sections 273 and 317, Cr. P. C. Thus, it can be safely concluded that an application under Section 205, Gr. P. C. is maintainable even though the accused has not appeared personally and the Magistrate should not hesitate to extend the discretion only on that ground.
Section 205 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Santanu Kumar Dash vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, ... on 17 April, 1998
6. Mr. Palit's argument so far as merit of the case is concerned, according to me, need not be answered at this stage, inasmuch as any observation by this Court would amount to pre-judging the issue to be decided by the Court below. The conclusion of the Court below while rejecting the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 205, Cr. P. C. that the N. B. W. A. having been issued, there was no scope for invoking jurisdiction under Section 205(1), Cr. P. C. is not tenable. As would be apparent on a cumulative reading of Sections 205(1), 273 and 311, Cr. P. C., only because N. B. W. A. had been issued, the S. D. J. M. could not have rejected a petition filed under Section 205, Cr. P. C. This also seems to be the settled position of law so far as this Court is concerned, vide Santanu v. State (1999) 17 OCR 239.
Surojit Sen And Sanjaya Singh vs Sanatan Behera on 16 July, 1999
The question as to under which circumstances personal attendance of ah accused can be dispensed with had been considered by this Court in the decisions cited supra as well as in Ramesh Ch. Lath v. State (1992) 5 OCR 97 : (1992 Cri LJ 2263), Bikram v. State (1994) 7 OCR 721, Radhanath v. Babulal (1986) 62 Cut LT 445, and last but not the least, Surojit v. Sanatan, (1999) 17 OCR 473. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions is that the power under Section 205(1), Cr. P. C. can be exercised by a Magistrate not only at the stage of issuance of summons to the accused, but also at subsequent stage even after issuance of N. B. W. Law is no more reintegrate that even if an application under Section 205, Cr. P.. C. is rejected at an earlier stage, such petition can be allowed at a subsequent stage by invoking the provisions of Sections 273 and 317, Cr. P. C. Thus, it can be safely concluded that an application under Section 205, Gr. P. C. is maintainable even though the accused has not appeared personally and the Magistrate should not hesitate to extend the discretion only on that ground.
Durowelds Private Limited And Ors. vs The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. ... on 17 September, 2002
8. The view expressed by me also gets fortified by a decision of this Court in Durowellds Pvt. Ltd. v. TISCO, (2002) 94 Cut LT 726. In the said decision it has been reiterated that if the Magistrate finds that insistence on personal attendance of the accused in the case would cause serious difficulty and inconvenience and the comparative advantage would not overweigh non-appearance, he should allow a petition under Section 205, Cr. P. C. The offence alleged in this case is under Section 138, N. I. Act, the chequ issued by the petitioner in favour of opposite party No. 2 having been dishonoured or bounced by the Bank. The case, as it appears, mostly depends on documentary evidence. As such, appearance of the accused petitioner on each date to which the case stands posted need not be insisted upon by the Magistrate. But then if, according to the Magistrate, during the trial presence of the accused becomes necessary, he is loathed with power under Sub-section (2) of Section 205, Cr. P. C. to direct his attendance in Court. In other words, for effectual trial, if the presence of the accused alleged to have committed the offence under Section 138, N. I. Act becomes necessary, it will be open to the Court below to insist on his personal attendance in Court.
1