Petitioner sought to plead guilty in absentia charges under IPC 279, 337, 338. Magistrate rejected plea. Court refused interference but directed petitioner to approach Magistrate regarding exemption from appearance. Petition withdrawn.
Petition allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of as such.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.675 OF 2007
Harshad Kantilal Shah .. Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.
Mr.R.A.Shaikh for the petitioner.
Mrs.U.V.Kejariwal APP for the respondent.
CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &
D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.
DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2007.
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner wants to plead guilty in
absentia. He is alleged to have committed offences
under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code. He made an appplication to the concerned
Magistrate, however, the concerned Magistrate has
rejected the said application. He has, therefore,
approached this Court. In the circumstances of the
case we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order rejecting the said prayer. The
learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may
be permanently exempted from appearing in the Court.
In this connection the petitioner can always make an
application to the concerned Magistrate. If the
:2:
petitioner makes such application through his
advocate before the concerned Magistrate, the same
shall be considered by the Magistrate in accordance
with law and in the light of judgment of this Court
in Bhaskar Sen Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
2004(4) Mh.L.J.1114. In view of this the learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to
withdraw this petition. The petition is allowed to
be withdrawn and disposed of as such.
(SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)
(D.B.BHOSALE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application to plead guilty in absentia should have been allowed.
Whether the petitioner could apply for permanent exemption from appearing in court instead.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhaskar Sen Vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶13
Bhaskar Sen Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2004(4) Mh.L.J.1114 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Harshad Kantilal Shah
State of Maharashtra
Ranjana Desai
D.B.Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court