TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his personal appearance dispensed with on all dates of hearing under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and whether the order refusing such exemption called for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Analysis: The relief sought was a permanent dispensation from appearance in a case involving serious economic allegations. The governing principle applied was that exemption from personal attendance is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised sparingly, having regard to the nature of the offence, the conduct of the accused, the likelihood of prejudice to the trial, and whether any useful purpose would be served by insisting on personal attendance. The Court distinguished between a request for occasional exemption and a request for wholesale dispensation throughout the proceedings. It also held that the accused's business commitments, status as a director of companies, and inconvenience in travelling were not sufficient grounds in a case involving grave alleged economic offences. The Court further held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to disturb a discretionary order unless there is patent illegality or abuse of process.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to permanent exemption from appearance, and the refusal to dispense with his appearance was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
