Supreme Court of India in " Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of
Maharashtra ", ( 2004) 13 SCC 324 and Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal
Jindal ... been discussed at length. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) specifically
reiterated that once plea of guilt of the accused
discharge in a summons case was considered
by this Court in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr.10 . The law laid down ... Mehta11 which reads as follows:
“While it is true that in Subramanium
Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra this Court
observed that once the plea
Roop
Lal Jindal & Ors. , ( 2004) 7 SCC 338 and Subramanium Sethuraman vs.
State of Maharashtra , AIR 2004 SC 4711. It is this order
judgments of this Court in Adalat
Prasad (supra) and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) would show
that they do not warrant any reconsideration. The Trial Court
Adalat Parasad Vs. Roopalal Jindal ]
3. (2004) 13 SCC 324 ( Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of
9/49
http://www.judis ... agreement with the said decision .
(iii) (2004) 13 SCC 324 ( Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of
Maharashtra )
To substantiate that the issuance of process cannot
Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal " ( 2004) 7 SCC 338 and "Subramanium
Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra " (2004) 13 SCC 324, would
reads as below:
" 11. While it is true that in Subramanium
Sethuraman versus State of Maharashtra [(2004)
13 SCC 324] this Court observed
Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of Subramanium
Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and
Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have interpreted the law
correctly and we reiterate that there
transaction.
6) Judgments of this Court in Adalat Prasad (supra)
and Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) have
interpreted the law correctly and we reiterate that
there
