<?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>2018 (3) TMI 1982 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305830</link>
    <description>An application under Section 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance is not barred merely because the accused has already appeared, since the Magistrate may dispense with attendance whenever summons issue and may still require presence later. The court must consider the actual grounds pleaded, and refusal cannot rest on irrelevant considerations. Here, distance from the trial court, residence outside the place of trial, and the burden of repeated attendance were material grounds supporting exemption. The challenge to maintainability failed, the refusal of dispensation was found erroneous, and personal appearance was waived subject to the court&#039;s power to direct attendance when necessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 06:28:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1982 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305830</link>
      <description>An application under Section 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance is not barred merely because the accused has already appeared, since the Magistrate may dispense with attendance whenever summons issue and may still require presence later. The court must consider the actual grounds pleaded, and refusal cannot rest on irrelevant considerations. Here, distance from the trial court, residence outside the place of trial, and the burden of repeated attendance were material grounds supporting exemption. The challenge to maintainability failed, the refusal of dispensation was found erroneous, and personal appearance was waived subject to the court&#039;s power to direct attendance when necessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305830</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>