ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

170 5. The Supreme Court in Basavaraj R.Patil and others v. State of Karnataka and others, 2000 Crl. Law Journal 4604, has also held that the Court can exempt examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, if the conditions specified in the proviso are fulfilled. However, the Hon’ble apex Court has further indicated that the accused should make an application to that effect supported by an affidavit narrating the facts to satisfy the Court of his real difficulties to be physically present in Court for giving such answers, he shall not be prejudiced by such dispensation of his examination and with an undertaking that he would not raise a grievance on that score at any stage of the case. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid proviso, this Court holds that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to dispense with the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code, if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) The case is a summons case; (ii) The attendance of the accused has been dispensed with by the court under section 205 of the Code. But such provision does not mean that in every summons case where personal attendance of the accused has been dispensed with, the Magistrate should dispense with examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code. The Magistrate should only dispense with the examination of the accused when it is shown that the accused is under any kind of disability or the accused cannot appear before the court without incurring considerable expenditure and by travelling from a far off place or that he is suffering from such ailment that it is not possible for him to appear in the LINGARJA REAL ESTATES DEVELOPERS -V-STATE [S.K.MISHRA,J.] court or that the accused is a Paradanasini lady, who is not appearing in public places; then the Magistrate may exercise the jurisdiction in allowing the application for dispensing with the examination of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. (instances cited are only illustrative and not exhaustive) provided that the accused makes an application supported by his own affidavit indicating, (i) narration of facts to satisfy the court of his real difficulties to be physically present in the court for giving answers to the questions put by the court , (ii) his assurance that no prejudice would be caused to him in any manner by dispensing with his personal presence for such examination and (iii) an undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case including appeal and revision. It appears to this Court that the learned trial court has not examined the question in its proper perspective. Therefore, it is felt necessary that the question should be examined by the trial court. 7. In the result, it is directed that the accused-petitioner shall make a fresh prayer before the learned lower court and supported by an affidavit as indicated in the preceding paragraphs. On such event, the learned trial court
shall dispose of the application on merit in the light of the observations made by this Court in this order. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 30th 171 January, 2010. Petitioner shall file a fresh application within seven days thereof. The Magistrate shall do well to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.
Page 1 and 2:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 271 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 3 and 4:
SK.IBRAHIM -V- STATE OF ORISSA [B.K
Page 5 and 6:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 275 I.M.QUDDUSI
Page 7 and 8:
MIRJA SIDDIK -V- STATE OF ORISSA ju
Page 9 and 10:
23 DILIP KUMAR RAY -V- STATE OF ORI
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 285 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 17 and 18:
NITYANANDA BEHERA -V- STATE [S.C.PA
Page 19 and 20:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 289 B.P.DAS,J &
Page 21 and 22:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 23 and 24:
ANUPAMA BEHERA -V- D.M., LIC OF IND
Page 25 and 26:
39 13. In the case of P. J. Chacko
Page 27 and 28:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 297 L.MOHAPATRA
Page 29 and 30:
43 Court in the case of M/s. Thunga
Page 31 and 32:
45 and (c) on account of some mista
Page 33 and 34:
“ The High Court held that the re
Page 35 and 36:
49 Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Page 37 and 38:
The copy of the Station Diary dt.24
Page 39 and 40:
53 accordingly, investigation was t
Page 41 and 42:
55 lying dead with ligature mark on
Page 43 and 44:
11.40(1974) CLT.977 : (Sahadeb Patn
Page 45 and 46:
comparative statement showing perfo
Page 47 and 48:
61 construed according to the plain
Page 49 and 50:
63 11. This Court in Sahadeb Pattna
Page 51 and 52:
ules and regulations h) Ability to
Page 53 and 54:
INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 328 A.S.NAIDU,J
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 332 PRADIP MOHA
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
91 impression of bias and favourtis
Page 79 and 80:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 348 M.M.DAS,J.
Page 81 and 82:
95 hearing the appeal set aside the
Page 83 and 84:
97 and the parties to the lease are
Page 85 and 86:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 354 R.N.BISWAL,
Page 87 and 88:
101 cargo, which was unfit for ship
Page 89 and 90:
103 This Section stipulates that ap
Page 91 and 92:
105 Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of
Page 93 and 94:
107 further, in the meantime also t
Page 95 and 96:
109 “…… The High Court was of
Page 97 and 98:
111 learned Subordinate Judge on th
Page 99 and 100:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 368 SANJU PANDA
Page 101 and 102:
115 OLR 791 (Sk. Mustafa and anothe
Page 103 and 104:
2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 372 SANJU PANDA
Page 105 and 106: 119 Rs. 71,74,451/- for repair of t
Page 107 and 108: 121 reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 (A
Page 109 and 110: 123 already quoted and the aforesai
Page 111 and 112: 125 offending truck. The further ca
Page 113 and 114: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 382 B.P.RAY,J.
Page 115 and 116: 129 to any person, or to consent th
Page 117 and 118: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 386 B.P.RAY, J.
Page 119 and 120: 133 testimony of the victim in a ca
Page 121 and 122: 135 relationship of the appellant w
Page 123 and 124: 137 Officer,Bangalore). 3.AIR 1996
Page 125 and 126: 139 restored, only to avoid the ord
Page 127 and 128: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 396 141 B.K.PAT
Page 129 and 130: 143 4.12.1997. The vehicle was insu
Page 131 and 132: 145 vehicle and insurance policy tr
Page 133 and 134: 147 place from the date of sale whe
Page 135 and 136: 149 deemed to have issued to the in
Page 137 and 138: 151 6. On an analysis of Sections 9
Page 139 and 140: 153 the policy purports to cover in
Page 141 and 142: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 410 B.K.NAYAK,
Page 143 and 144: 157 “….. The decision in the ca
Page 145 and 146: 2010 ( I ) ILR-CUT- 414 S.K.MISHRA,
Page 147 and 148: 161 the imposition of fine of Rs.50
Page 149 and 150: 163 overtuous regarding sex. Theref
Page 151 and 152: 165 6. The learned trial court, aft
Page 153 and 154: 167 The Opposite parties 2 to 11 ar
Page 155: 169 3. It is undisputed at this sta
show all

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION - Orissa High Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?