SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Kar) 979

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
Chikka Krishna Venkatesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.B. Sadashivappa, Advocate
For the Respondent: Chetna Desai, HCGP

ORDER :

John Michael Cunha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

2. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code. Before the Trial Court, petitioner moved an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order sheet dated 18.01.2017 and points out that on 18.07.2017 the learned Sessions Judge posted the matter for pronouncement of the order at 3.00 p.m., but the order came to be pronounced earlier to 3.00 p.m. The order sheet reads as follows:

'The accused called out, absent, when called out at 1.45 p.m. Hence, NBW issue along with notice to surety by 07.02.2017?

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the same day counsel for the accused moved an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C., but the said application was put up only on 19.01.2017 and the NBW was recalled. Thereafter, the case was posted on 07.02.2017 and on that day the accused was absent and exemption application was filed, but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the said e




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top