<?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>2004 (3) TMI 830 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310410</link>
    <description>The HC granted the petitioner&#039;s request for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court ruled that the petitioner could be represented by an advocate without appearing in person before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. This decision was contingent upon the petitioner providing a written undertaking not to contest their identity, allowing the trial to proceed in their absence. The HC directed the lower court to accept this representation, emphasizing the accused&#039;s right to such representation based on legal precedents. The order was to be communicated to the lower court, with costs borne by the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:19:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 830 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310410</link>
      <description>The HC granted the petitioner&#039;s request for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court ruled that the petitioner could be represented by an advocate without appearing in person before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. This decision was contingent upon the petitioner providing a written undertaking not to contest their identity, allowing the trial to proceed in their absence. The HC directed the lower court to accept this representation, emphasizing the accused&#039;s right to such representation based on legal precedents. The order was to be communicated to the lower court, with costs borne by the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>