9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Separation of cases against an accused who cannot be apprehended. 2. Permissibility of substituted service in a criminal case. 3. Proceeding ex parte against an accused and rendering a decision ex parte regarding his guilt. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Separation of Cases Against an Accused Who Cannot Be Apprehended: The Court addressed whether, when an accused cannot be apprehended despite efforts, the case against him may be separated in terms of Rule 2 of Chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice. The Court concluded that in a criminal trial, the presence of the accused is crucial. If the accused cannot be secured within a reasonable time through due process, the case against such an accused must be split up as per Chapter IV of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice. This allows the proceedings against the remaining accused who are present to continue. This procedure is applicable even in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as these are substantive criminal offenses requiring the presence of the accused for a fair trial. 2. Permissibility of Substituted Service in a Criminal Case: The Court examined whether substituted service is permissible in a criminal case. According to Section 65 of the Cr.P.C., if service cannot be effected through usual methods, substituted service by affixing the summons to a conspicuous part of the house is allowed. Similarly, Section 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits service by speed post or courier. The Court affirmed that substituted service is recognized in criminal trials, including for offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, if the accused does not respond to such service, coercive measures like issuing warrants must be employed to secure the accused's presence before proceeding with the trial. 3. Proceeding Ex Parte Against an Accused and Rendering a Decision Ex Parte Regarding His Guilt: The Court considered whether an accused can be proceeded ex parte and a decision rendered ex parte regarding his guilt. It emphasized that criminal trials require the accused's presence to record pleas, take evidence, and impose sentences. Section 273 of Cr.P.C. mandates that evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused. Therefore, a criminal trial cannot proceed ex parte as in civil proceedings. The Court concluded that an ex parte decision regarding the guilt of an accused is not permissible in criminal law, and thus, the answer to this question is in the negative. Conclusion: The Court's answers to the referred questions are: 1. Affirmative, regarding the separation of cases against an unapprehended accused. 2. Affirmative, regarding the permissibility of substituted service in criminal cases. 3. Negative, regarding proceeding ex parte and rendering a decision ex parte on the accused's guilt. The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was remitted to the learned single Judge to decide the case on merits in light of these answers.
|
