12th July, 2010 passed in CC No. 1396/1/2004 granting permanent
exemption from personal appearance to the Respondent herein.
2. Learned counsel ... that the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate erred in law while granting the permanent
exemption to the Respondent herein, Jatinder Kaur. It is contended that the
present
Kumar for grant of permission to go to Australia and for
permanent exemption from appearance u/s 205 Cr.P.C.
2. The circumstances giving ... Australia and another
application under section 205 Cr.P.C. for permanent
exemption from personal appearance. Vide order dated
09.02.2017, Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate while
2010 accused moved an application (Exh. 163)
for permanent exemption mainly on the ground that in view of the
order of de novo trial ... dispute the
identity, the learned Magistrate rejected the application for
permanent exemption.
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016
similarly placed were given due promotion in the State service on permanent exemption from departmental tests.
5. Petitioners submit that respondents did not put forward ... have put in 25 years of service shall be eligible for permanent exemption from passing the obligatory departmental tests for all purposes such as promotion
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was
granted permanent exemption from personal appearance by the Ld. MM
vide order dated 19.05.2009, subject ... appearance shall not delay or hamper the trial. Therefore, while
granting permanent exemption from appearance, he is deemed to have
reserved his right to call
that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in law while granting the permanent exemption to the Respondent herein, Jatinder Kaur. It is contended that the present ... case was not an appropriate case to grant permanent exemption from personal appearance to the Respondent. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that
that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in law while granting the permanent exemption to the Respondent herein, Jatinder Kaur. It is contended that the present ... case was not an appropriate case to grant permanent exemption from personal appearance to the Respondent. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that
that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in law while granting the permanent exemption to the Respondent herein, Jatinder Kaur. It is contended that the present ... case was not an appropriate case to grant permanent exemption from personal appearance to the Respondent. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that
that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in law while granting the permanent exemption to the Respondent herein, Jatinder Kaur. It is contended that the present ... case was not an appropriate case to grant permanent exemption from personal appearance to the Respondent. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that
respondent Anuj Wadhwa moved an application u/s 205 CrPC seeking
permanent exemption from his physical appearance and same stood
allowed by Ld. Trial Court ... return to face trial, if granted
permanent exemption;
(iv) That the copy of the exemption application and the
documents of the respondent No.3 were
