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

2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18196

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
RESHMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR, SRI.T.R.RANJITH

O R D E R

The petitioner herein is arrayed as the 6th accused in C.C.

No.2383 of 2014 of JFCM-I, Chavakkad. Pending the proceedings, she filed M.P. No.10556 of 2016 seeking permission to go abroad on the premise that her husband, who is employed in gulf country has arranged a job for her. The court below, by order dated 11.11.2016 rejected the application on the ground that the trial cannot be proceeded without the presence of the accused. Hence, the discretion under Sec.205 Cr.P.C. was declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the affidavit she had specifically stated that when the company was incorporated, she was a minor. The affidavit shows that she is aged 20 years. She has also denied the various transactions. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in the affidavit filed by the 6th accused it was specifically stated that if evidence is recorded in her absence, she will not challenge it. It was also reiterated that the charge read over in her absence and in the presence of the counsel as well as Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Statement read over will be answered by the counsel and it will be binding on her.

It was also asserted that she will not challenge it.

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