Petitioner challenged an order requiring his presence for executing bonds under CrPC Sec. 437A during appellate judgment pronouncement. The High Court distinguished prior precedent and upheld the requirement, dismissing the writ petition.
Petition is dismissed.
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.
vss
wp.1579.2012.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 2012
Lachmandas Hassanand ... Petitioner
Vs.
Smt.N.D. Puntambekar & anr. .... Respondents
Mrs.Dimple Shah for the Petitioner Mr.K.V. Saste, APP, for the Respondent No.2
CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ.
DATED: AUGUST 1, 2012
P.C.:
31.12.2009.
1 of 2
wp.1579.2012.sxw
the case may be, to ensure that the accused remains present for execution of the bonds as per section 437A of the Code.
(R.G. KETKAR, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the requirement under Section 437A CrPC to produce the accused at the time of judgment pronouncement applies unconditionally.
Whether the earlier judgment in Kanji R. Barot remains valid post the unamended provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanji R. Barot vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Distinguished¶3
2008 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 881 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lachmandas Hassanand
Smt. N.D. Puntambekar & anr.
A.M. Khanwilkar
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
