Skip to main content

Accused need not be present for arrest warrant cancellation: HC

The Bombay High Court came down heavily on lower court judges, for blindly rejecting applications of cancellation of arrest warrants when the accused is not present. The High Court, on December 24, ruled that in such situations, orders must be passed on the basis of merit.

"There is no law stating that the accused should personally remain present for cancellation of a warrant. If the lawyer makes an application for cancellation of a warrant, it needs to be considered on merits by the Magistrate, without insisting the appearance of the applicant or accused," said Justice M L Tahaliyani.

The court was hearing an application filed by businessman Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, who is an accused in a cheque-bouncing case. Chaturvedi has not attended hearing in his case for the past one and a half years, due to which a non-bailable warrant was issued against him by a magistrate's court in Dadar.

His lawyer approached the court to cancel the arrest warrant against him, assuring the court that he would be present when the case is heard next.

But the plea was rejected on December on the grounds that Chaturvedi was not present to cancel his warrant. "Since the applicant was ready to appear before the Magistrate after cancellation of warrant, and there was reasonable apprehension that he might be arrested if he came to court, the Magistrate should have heard the application on the basis of merit," the court observed.

He further instructed that a copy of this order be circulated to all citybased magistrates. "Many petitions are filed in this court only because the learned Magistrate straightaway takes aview that the warrant cannot be cancelled unless the accused appears before the court. The view taken by a few is not correct. It is high time that this court lets the Magistrate note that the appearance of the applicant or the accused is not necessary when application for cancellation of warrant is made," the court stated.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more