9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 621 - HC - Income TaxCriminal Original Petition filed to call for the records relating to file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Egmore, Chennai - petitioner requested this Court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioner is dispensed with and he shall appear before the Court below as and when required by the Court below and during all the other times, he shall be permitted to be represented by the counsel. The petitioner shall be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the time of final judgement. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in EOC.No.621 of 2017 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial shall be conducted on a day to day basis in accordance with the guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab 2015 (1) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURT - If the petitioner adopts any dilatory tactics, it is open to the trial Court to insist upon the presence of the petitioner and remand him to custody as per the judgment of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH 2001 (3) TMI 1046 - SUPREME COURT . Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the quashing of records in EOC.No.621 of 2017 and the conduct of proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Egmore, Chennai. Quashing of Records: The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking to call for the records relating to EOC.No.621 of 2017 and quash the same. The grounds raised by the petitioner's counsel were deemed factual in nature, requiring appreciation of evidence which falls outside the purview of the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court decided not to interfere with the proceedings pending before the lower court and left it open for the petitioner to raise all grounds before the Court below for consideration on their own merits and in accordance with the law. Presence of the Petitioner: The counsel for the petitioner requested the court to dispense with the presence of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court decided to dispense with the petitioner's presence, allowing representation by counsel except during specific instances. The petitioner was directed to be present before the Court below at the time of questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the time of final judgment. Direction to Complete Proceedings: The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceedings in EOC.No.621 of 2017 within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The trial was mandated to be conducted on a day-to-day basis following guidelines from a Supreme Court case. Any dilatory tactics by the petitioner could lead to the trial court insisting on the petitioner's presence and remanding him to custody as per a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed as a consequence of this disposition.
|
