Need judgment
Ponnappa
(Querist) 04 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear friends,
Can anybody please provide me a judgement stating that the accused presence is not required during evidence when a NBW is in force. I could not find this SC ruling. I heard the Judge saying it.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 04 March 2013
Dear Querist
317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases.
(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct and the personal attendance of such accused.
(2) If the accused in any Such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn Such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of' such accused be taken up or tried separately.
Feel Free to Call
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 04 March 2013
Section 317 has no bearing in the given case. This is matter of common knowledge that accused is not coming to the court and his Non Bailable warrants are already in operation so the court has to declare such accused PO now instead of taking any evidence against him. There is no such judgments in my knowledge as you have referred.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 05 March 2013
Trial in absence of accused person may proceed.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 March 2013
There are several sites to find judgments.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 05 March 2013
search indiankanoon.com.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 05 March 2013
we dont provide judgements . visit indian kanoon site for judgements
Ponnappa
(Querist) 06 March 2013
Dear Raj Kumar sir,
Your inference is correct.The NBW is in force. The correct thing would be to issue summons to surety and then after the surety fails the evidence should continue, however, with out doing it, if the evidence is done the accused has lost his right to appreciate the evidence.Kindly share your thoughts on this.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 07 March 2013
Proceeding uner section 446 Criminal Procedure code is to be got initiated first so that the surity may be forced to produce the accused and meanwhile if accused comes present, he shall definitely avail the cross-examination of the witnesses being produced by prosecution.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 07 March 2013
Every thing can not be provided in law and there can not be citations for every situation.
If you are from defense you can find out ways to come out of any complicated situations like this.
First of all an advocate can apply for cancellation of NBW, many experts have posted citations on this site about this.
After cancellation of NBW the accused can apply for exemption and waiver for presence during cross of any witness.
If you are complainant than situation will be different since the complainant can oppose all such moves and the best way for defense will be to go for revision against all rejection of applications and surely relief will be granted.
POWER OF DEFENSE IS POWER OF DARKNESS WHICH IS PERPETUAL AND IMMENSE.
Ponnappa
(Querist) 09 March 2013
Dear Raj Kumar sir,
Thank you sir you have been very helpful. Your experience shows up here.
