Whether all accused required for delivering judgement
Adv. Virendra
(Querist) 09 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
In 2 counter cases that are due for judgement, the judge instists that all the accused must be present at the time of pronouncing judgement. Which becomes impossible as the number of accused is too many.
What is the exact postition, is there any relevant case law ( I tried to find but failed to)
PARTHA P BORBORA
(Expert) 09 September 2011
JUDGEMENT SHOULD BE DELIVERED IN AN OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED. SO, THEY MUST APPEAR.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 09 September 2011
Yes. There accused's appearance is must while pronounce the judgement. Because there is 3 questionings in criminal cases. While the first appearance of accused, copies will be supplied to the accused then court will question about the charge against him. If he admitted mean case is no more. But if he denied the charges mean trial will commenced. Then on end of the prosecution evidences, thats second question. Then 3rd question before pronuncing the judgement. So as per criminal procedure accused's appearance is must.
Guest
(Expert) 10 September 2011
I agree with experts.
Guest
(Expert) 10 September 2011
I disagree
read the section 353
--------------------------------
(6) If the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted:
Provided that, where there are more accused than one, and one or more of them do not attend the court on the date on which the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case, pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence.
------------------------------------
not necessary, the judge may be pronounce the judgement whether it is acquital or conviction in the absence of one of several accused persons.
Guest
(Expert) 10 September 2011
But many of us are not insisting many provision's benefits of law. also many of us are NOT PRESSING TO INVOKE the same
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Mr. Virendra Advocate
I would like to draw your kind attention on
famous case 26/11 of Kasab, the High court deliver judgement through video conferencing.
If practically not possible to present all accused, you can request to the court to deliver judgement through video conferencing.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Good morning mr.shailesh. I can't agree with you.. In a particular case judgement pronunced through video conferencing mean there is some reasons.
Sailesh Kumar Shah
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Mr. Tom
You are right sir, there was security reason, accused refused to present etc. in that case. But it was delivered Hon'ble High court. and High court ruling binding on lower court. Moreover, If some of reasons is similar, then the court will be deliver judgement through video conferencing.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Again am having some objection sir.. If the accused in judicial custody mean its can be pronounce through video conferencing. But while they are on bail how can be pronounce by video conferencing.
Guest
(Expert) 10 September 2011
experts advised very well.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 10 September 2011
And this is the reason for questioning before trial courts. That before pronounces the judgement judge will question before the accused about his conclusion. If its conviction mean Usually accused will beg to reduce the punishment.. If he is a first time offender mean court will consider his situation, some time pass the low punishment.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 10 September 2011
On the other hand if judge pronounced the judgement on the absense of the accused mean, if its acquittal mean its ok. Otherwise if its conviction mean? Are you thinking that any one accused will be surrendered for obeying his punishment passed by court?
Guest
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Dear Shri Ganesan,
No doubt, in the case of accused not in custody, sec.353 of CrPC provides what you have stated in your reply. BUT the question of the querist specifically states, THE JUDGE INSISTS THAT ALL THE ACCUSED MUST BE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT."
So, the accused or his lawyer can only pray NOT compel to the court to pronounce judgment in the absence of the accused.
Moreover, he has neither stated that the accused was not in custody, nor that the attendeance of the accused during trial was duly dispensed with.
In fact the earlier replies of the experts were on the face of the question and with particular reference to the nature of question only.
Hope I am not incorrect in my analysis of the situation explained by the querist.
Guest
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Dear Shailesh,
The case of Kasab, the 26/11 accused was quite different from all other criminal cases, as the serious security concerns were involved, not only about the danger of life of the accused by the irate mob that could vitiate all the norms of natural justice, but also of the country where the terrorist outfits would have tried even to get him free forcibly that being not in the interest of the nation.
So, we cannot equate kasab's case with any other case in any way.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 September 2011
some question do not have exact arithmetical answer they depend on their own circumstances for which the same provisions can be utilized but differently.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 10 September 2011
The subsequent posts curiously silent about the very pertinent answer of Mr Ganeshan about section 353 crpc which replies the very question of the author.
PARTHA P BORBORA
(Expert) 10 September 2011
Disagree.
It appears from the query that the--"...judge insists that all the accused must be present at the time of pronouncing judgment....".
The provision made under Section 353(6) used the term " MAY"- it reads as- " Provided that, where there are more then one accused, and one or more of them do not attend the court on the date the judgment is to be pronounced, the presiding officer may, in order to avoid undue delay in the disposal of the case, pronounce the judgment notwithstanding their absence."
in the present case the judge insists that all the accused must be present at the time of pronouncing the judgment. So, they must appear to hear the judgment.
girish shringi
(Expert) 11 September 2011
I do agree with Mr.Ganeshan.
