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

1992 Supreme(Raj) 190

MOHINI KAPUR
M. M. Lal – Appellant
Versus
Water (Prevention of Pollution) Board (150) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Subhash Jain, Advocate, for Petitioners G.K. Garg Advocate, for Respondents

KAPUR, J.—Four accused-petitioners before me are facing trial for the offence under the Pollution Act, 1974. They are officers of M/s. Eicher Goodearth Limited, Alwar. They moved application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for exemption from personal attendance. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rejected the application saying that the offence is of a serious nature and that the personal attendance cannot be exempted on the ground that the accused persons are high officials and influential persons. The revision filed before the Sessions Judge was dismissed as non- maintainable. Now the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. For the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 it has been submitted that they live out side Alwar and they are elderly persons whose presence is not required on every date of hearing. They undertake to appear whenever the Magistrate directs them to appear personally. As for petitioner No. 4, it is submitted that he is at Alwar and he can appear on all dates of hearing and he would be representing the accused in the case.

(2) I need not go into the details and the reasons given by the petitioners for not a



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