<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (6) TMI 1017 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281847</link>
    <description>Personal appearance of an accused may be dispensed with in a warrant case under Section 205 CrPC where the Magistrate, on judicial discretion, finds the circumstances justify exemption and the accused gives the necessary undertaking. The Court stated that attendance is not an inflexible requirement in every stage of criminal proceedings, and that constructive presence through counsel may be accepted in appropriate cases, subject to the requirements of plea, examination and trial procedure. The Magistrate erred in treating exemption as impossible in warrant trials, but the application on the facts did not satisfy the conditions for immediate relief. The accused was given liberty to file a proper application for decision according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:32:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 1017 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281847</link>
      <description>Personal appearance of an accused may be dispensed with in a warrant case under Section 205 CrPC where the Magistrate, on judicial discretion, finds the circumstances justify exemption and the accused gives the necessary undertaking. The Court stated that attendance is not an inflexible requirement in every stage of criminal proceedings, and that constructive presence through counsel may be accepted in appropriate cases, subject to the requirements of plea, examination and trial procedure. The Magistrate erred in treating exemption as impossible in warrant trials, but the application on the facts did not satisfy the conditions for immediate relief. The accused was given liberty to file a proper application for decision according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>