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

1988 Supreme(Ori) 15

S.C.MOHAPATRA
RAGHUNATH DAS – Appellant
Versus
HARI MOHAN PANI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.B.MISHRA, S.K.Nayak, S.Mishra, S.N.Mishra

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar rejecting the application for dispensing with personal attendance and being allowed to be represented under Section 205 Cr. P. C. Petitioners along with another accused filed an application in this Court for quashing the cognizance taken by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate which has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19-10- 1987 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 823 of 1987.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is a school teacher. Petitioner No. 2 is an employee of a Regional Co-operative Marketing Society. Petitioner No. 3 is a student of a Law College. The fourth accused, a school student, has been allowed to be represented by the impugned order.

( 3 ) REPRESENTATION is a mode of a appearance of an accused. It is a matter between the Court and the accused. In prosecutions initiated on police report, the Public Prosecutor has a right to be heard on the question of bail. So far as a prosecution initiated on complaint, the Magistrate while issuing summons has also power to direct the appearance of an accused through a Lawyer without personally app




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