CRL.MC No. 998 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Apr 2008
- Bench
- V RAMKUMAR
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Having regard to the voluminous documentary evidence and innumerable witnesses for the prosecution, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly, if the petitioners file an application for discharge at the relevant stage, the said application shall…
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = =Crl.M.C.No. 998 of 2008= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008ORDERPetitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 3 inC.C.No.40/2005 pending before the Court of Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for offences punishable under various sub sections of Section 9 of the CentralExcise Act, 1944, seek to quash the complaint and further proceedings.
I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General.
Admittedly, the court below has not framed charge against the petitioners. The stage for framing the charge is yet to arise.
Having regard to the voluminous documentary evidence and innumerable witnesses for the prosecution, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to plead for a discharge in absentia. Accordingly, if the petitioners file an application for discharge at the relevant stage, the said application shall be considered and orders passed without insisting on the personal appearance of Crl.M.C.No.998 of 20082the petitioners at the pre-charge stage as well. The petitioners shall be permitted to plead for a discharge in absentia. In case the petitioners personal appearance is dispensed with by the Magistrate on their application, it shall not be open to the petitioner to contend that the examination of witnesses at thepre-charge stage was behind their back, in violation of Section273 Cr.P.C.This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
CentralExcise Act, 1944 — s. 9; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 273.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 02 Apr 2008. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.