Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Prinsep, J., Ameer Ali, J.
Basumoti Adhikarini - Appellant
Versus
Budram Kalita - Respondent
Decided On : 18-12-1893
Criminal Procedure - Section 205 - Dispensing with Personal Attendance of Accused
Fact of the Case:
This is an application complaining of an order passed by the Extra Assistant Magistrate of Goalpara, refusing to dispense with the personal attendance of a parda-nashin woman who has been charged with defamation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate has taken an erroneous view of the law and that he is competent to dispense with the personal attendance of the lady under the provisions of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate has the power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application of Section 205 is not limited to summons cases, but to any case in which a Magistrate may issue a summons. Therefore, Section 205 applies to the present case where the Magistrate has exercised his discretion to issue a summons instead of a warrant.
Final Decision: The court left it to the Magistrate to exercise his discretion under Section 205 as he thinks fit and proper.
JUDGMENT
Prinsep and Ameer Ali, JJ. - This is an application complaining of an order passed by the Extra Assistant Magistrate of Goalpara, refusing to dispense with the personal attendance of a parda-nashin woman who has been charged with defamation. The Magistrate seems to think that, under the law, he has no such power, and the terras of his order leave it doubtful whether, if he held that he has such power, he would not have exercised it. It seems to us that the Magistrate has taken an erroneous view of the law in this respect, and that he is competent to dispense with the personal attendance of the lady under the provisions of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence, no doubt, is a warrant case, but u/s Section 204, a Magistrate can exercise his discretion in such a case and issue a summons instead of a warrant. In the present case the Magistrate apparently did exercise such discretion. Section 205 declares that, whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. The application of this section is not limited to summons cases, but to any case in which a Magistrate may issue a summons. Section 205 consequently applies to a case of this description. With the expression of this opinion as to the law, we leave it to the Magistrate to exercise such discretion as he thinks fit and proper.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
