Supreme Court as well as various High Courts of the country have prescribed that the Magistrate should adopt a liberal approach and not be hyper-technical in deciding such an exemption application in favour of the accused.
Introduction
Summoning by a court of law after taking cognizance of an alleged offence, whether put forward via a private complaint or police report, is the trigger point of a criminal prosecution. It has been reiterated over and again by the Supreme Court of the country that summoning of an accused is a serious issue and should be set into motion only after careful scrutiny of every word reproduced in the complaint petition.1 However, once the Court applies its mind and prima facie is of the opinion that there are sufficient materials in the complaint, the Court shall issue summons to ensure personal appearance of the accused persons.
We shall now proceed to examine and discuss hereunder that whether the accused is lawfully entitled to make his first appearance before the Court, either for getting explained the substance of accusation or taking bail, through his advocate or that the Court has been given a judicial discretion to allow or disallow such prayer of the accused for exemption from personal appearance, whether at the first instance or later stage of the proceedings. For that purpose, we have to thoroughly examine the relevant provisions subsisting in the Criminal Codes, judgments pronounced by the High Courts and Supreme Court of India, and the impending change, if any, that has been sought to be brought forth through the newly introduced Sanhitas.
Provisions under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 205, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code), is the enabling provision whereunder the Magistrates have been conferred a judicial discretion to exempt an accused from being physically present before the court of law and to make his appearance through a counsel. For ready reference, the provision is reproduced hereunder:
205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.—
(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
(2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case, may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.
At the very outset, the meaning of the term “discretion” should be deciphered. Lord Halsbury in Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield2 interpreted the word “discretion” as:
…”discretion” means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke’s case3 according to law, and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office, ought to confine himself.
The expression “discretion”, thus means a judicial discretion and not a whim or fancy of a Magistrate. The discretion vested in the Magistrate must be exercised in consideration of the facts and circumstances of a given case and there is no uniform formula involved therein. The “discretion” of the Magistrate is expected to be bereft of any arbitrariness and caprice and should be well aligned to cogent reasons in support of the same.
The courts insist upon the physical appearance of the accused for his own benefit since he himself can observe whether any of his rights are getting violated during the trial proceedings and it is the utmost duty of every court of law that a fair trial is ensured.4 Nonetheless, in certain other circumstances too, the Magistrate can insist on the physical appearance of the accused that will be discussed at length.
Section 205 of the Code postulates that only a natural person can claim representation thereunder through a pleader. But where a juristic person like that of a corporation is made an accused, the provision shall cease to have effect. Section 305 of the Code lays down the manner in which an accused body corporate including a registered society may appoint any person to be its representative for the purpose of inquiry or trial. However, the corporates have been given liberty to choose the person who would represent them before the Court and also that nominated person has been given the right of refusal or acceptance.5
Apart from Section 205 of the Code, there is one other provision that empowers the court of law to grant exemption to an accused which is Section 317 of the Code. The section reads as hereunder:
317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases.—(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.
(2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.
Although both Sections 205 and 317 of the Code relate to grant of exemption from personal appearance of the accused, there are certain subtle differences between the two sections. While Section 317 is applicable at the stage subsequent to commencement of inquiry and trial, Section 205 can be suited at the very commencement of a criminal proceeding as early as when the Magistrate issues summons for appearance of the accused.6 Another difference between the two provisions is that while the power granted under Section 205 could be exercised only by the Magistrate, the power under Section 317 can be exercised both by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Both Sections 205 and 317 of the Code are enabling provisions enacted for the benefit of the accused coupled with judicial discretion of the courts.
Whether Section 205 is applicable to first appearance before the Court
Once the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues summons, the accused is under an obligation to appear before the Court. Now the question arises, whether on the very first instance, the accused is entitled to make his appearance through his pleader or that such application can be entertained only after he appears in person before the Court concerned.
On a bare perusal of the wordings of Section 205 of the Code, there is nothing palpable to suggest that there is any legal bar imposed on the Magistrate to allow the accused to make his first appearance through a lawyer. Nonetheless, it would be open to the Magistrate concerned to decide whether such circumstances compelling the accused to appear through his pleader exists or not. As settled by several judicial pronouncements that if the accused undertakes, vide an affidavit, that if granted the exemption, he would not dispute his identity nor would he disregard the order of the Magistrate to appear on a given date(s), the Magistrate should adopt a liberal approach while deciding such application.
The Calcutta High Court, way back in 1975 almost three decades before the judgment of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., in S.P. Sinha v. Labour Enforcement Officer7, had unequivocally held that the wordings of Section 205 of the Code allows the Magistrate to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused while issuing process and that if the accused does appear through his pleader on receipt of summons, the same shall be deemed to be his first appearance before the court of law.
The Supreme Court of India in the landmark judgment of Bhaskar Industriescase8 held that there is no bar on the discretion of the Magistrate to allow an accused to make his first appearance through a counsel. In fact, the Magistrate is well within his jurisdiction to record plea of the accused even when such a plea is made by the counsel of the accused in cases where the accused’s personal appearance has been dispensed with. If the Magistrate deems that the personal appearance of the accused would result in unnecessary hardship and expenditure to the accused, he may well exempt the accused from the same provided no prejudice is caused to the prosecution.
The guidelines set out in the aforesaid judgment has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in yet another much relied upon judgment of Puneet Dalmia v. CBI9. However, the Supreme Court also prescribed for one precaution that the Magistrate should adopt while allowing an application under Section 205 of the Code is insisting upon an undertaking to be filed by the accused to the effect that he would not dispute his identity at any stage of the proceedings and that a counsel shall be representing him before the Court on each and every date of hearing and that he has no objection if evidence is taken in his absence. The Supreme Court therein also reaffirmed the power of the Magistrate under Section 205(2) of the Code to direct the physical appearance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings.
Therefore, the Supreme Court of India through its pronouncements has made it clear that the Magistrate will be within its jurisdiction to allow the accused to make his first appearance through the counsel if the circumstance of the given case so warrants.
Approach of the High Courts while dealing with petitions under Section 205 of the Code
Various High Courts of the country have followed the approach and guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in both Bhaskar Industries10 and Puneet Dalmia11 judgments. Upon taking into consideration the harassment that the accused would have to endure to physically appear before the Court and also the gravity of the offence alleged together with the bona fide affidavit filed by the accused, the courts are more inclined to exempt the accused persons from physically appearing before them. Nonetheless, the courts are equally cautious to require the accused to submit on oath an affidavit stating therein, inter alia, that he would not dispute his identity at later stage of the proceedings and that he has no objection if the evidence is taken in his absence and that he would appear before the Magistrate as and when directed to do so.
The Jharkhand High Court in Nawal Kumar Kanodia v. State of Jharkhand12, taking note of the fact that the accused persons are higher officials and responsible persons of the Company, allowed the petition filed under Section 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance provided that the petitioners shall file an undertaking before the learned court below that trial will not be hampered in their absence. Similar approach was taken by this Court in Arvind Vyas v. Union of India13 on consideration of the grounds of financial and physical hardship caused to the accused for insistence of personal appearance.
The Orissa High Court in Hemangini Meher v. Sangita Naik14 has granted exemption under Section 205 of the Code from physical appearance to the accused person in view of the nature of accusation against the accused, the age of the accused and the fact that she is a lady, a public servant and a doctor, whose presence was necessary in the hospital. It is interesting to note that in the said judgment, the High Court made a significant remark that the Magistrate, while exercising its discretion under Section 205, cannot be arbitrary and must adjudge the circumstances with his judicial conscience, weighing all the relevant factors, so as to come to a definite conclusion if personal attendance of an accused is indispensable before the Court especially in a case where the accused is a public servant.
The Kerala High Court in the celebrated judgment of Helen Rubber Industries v. State of Kerala15 had held that the courts should be generous in extending the benefits of Section 205 of the Code to the accused, especially where the offences alleged are technical in nature, not involving any moral turpitude, sentence is only fine and where the accused are women, labourers, wage earners or busy men. Similar approach has been adopted by this High Court in Benny P.R. v. State of Kerala16.
The Patna High Court in Hiremagalur Parthsarthy Shamalah v. State of Bihar17 had allowed an application under Section 205 of the Code keeping in view the difficulties in travel of the accused persons who were posted in Shillong and Pune while the trial was taking place in Patna.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in R.P. Gupta v. State of M.P.18 had allowed the exemption from physical appearance to the accused, inter alia, on the ground that he was made accused not individually but by the virtue of his office. The Court also held that the first appearance of the accused after the issuance of summons can well be through his counsel which is within the ambit of the wordings of Section 205 of the Code.
The Bombay High Court in Bhaskar Sen v. State of Maharashtra19 in light of the guidelines passed by the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries case20 held that Section 205 gives wide discretion to the Magistrate even to grant permission to make first appearance through a counsel.
The Calcutta High Court in Ajit Kumar Chakraborty v. Serampore Municipality21 set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application of the accused persons under Section 205 of the Code. The Divisional Bench held that where the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is fine and the accused was a senior member of the judiciary, it was not correct on the part of the Magistrate to reject the application without cogent reasons in favour thereof.
The Madras High Court in V.G. Panneerdas & Co. v. Nataraja Thevar22 while setting aside the order of rejection passed by the Magistrate, discussed in detail the spirit of the provision and the intent of the legislature while enacting Section 205 of the Code. The wordings of Section 205(1) of the Code, in particular, reflects that it is a benevolent provision and nothing could be read into it to indicate that the accused has to appear first physically before the Magistrate so that such an exemption application could be heard. Per contra, if the Magistrate is taking a narrow view while rejecting an exemption application, it must give cogent reasons in doing so failing which the same is liable to be set aside.
On a careful scrutiny of the above cases, it would be evident that the High Courts of the country, even before the judgment of Bhaskar Industries case, have taken a liberal and pragmatic view in disposal of the exemption applications in favour of the accused persons.
Jurisdiction of High Court to lay down guidelines for Magistrates to be followed while granting exemption from physical appearance
It is interesting to note that in number of cases, various High Courts have laid down a set of guidelines that should be followed by the Magistrates while granting exemption under Section 205 of the Code. The High Courts, while exercising their supervisory powers as conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, tend to lay down some broad set of guidelines that the Magistrate ought to bear in mind while deciding an application preferred for dispensing personal appearance. However, the Supreme Court of India, on certain occasions, negated such action of the High Court citing importance of the independence of the lower judiciary.
A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala23 held that the discretion afforded to the Magistrate under the Code cannot be circumscribed by the High Courts by enumerating general directions in this regard.
The Supreme Court previously also in Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shashi Agrawal24 had held that the domain of granting exemption from personal appearance of the accused lies with the Magistrate under Section 205 of the Code and that jurisdiction should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court unless grave miscarriage of justice is palpable on the face of the record.
While passing the above orders, the Supreme Court was also mindful of the power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with special emphasis on Article 227(1)25. However, the Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab26 held that even while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts must be enough cautious to use it sparingly in appropriate cases where the lower judiciary has exceeded its jurisdiction but at the same time the High Courts must keep in mind that the power of superintendence should not come in the way of independence of the lower judiciary.
Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in State v. Navjot Sandhu27 where it was held that power under Article 227 should be exercised in exceptional cases and that it is a settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be used “in the cloak of an appeal in disguise”.
Interestingly, one judicial pronouncement that stands in contrast to the aforementioned judgments is where the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State (NCT of Delhi)28 has upheld the power of the High Court to allow appearance of the accused through the counsel directly under Section 205 of the Code. The Court negated the argument that under Section 205 of the Code, the jurisdiction lies only with the Magistrate to allow exemption from physical appearance.
Instances of strict approach adopted by courts refusing to allow petitions for exemption from physical appearance
It is a settled principle by now that the Magistrates who are in seisin over an application preferred under Section 205 of the Code seeking exemption from personal appearance, must adopt a liberal approach while deciding such applications. Unless the courts deem it expedient that the appearance of the accused is indispensable for the interest of justice and equity, the Magistrate shall not insist upon the physical appearance of the accused. The decision of the Magistrate should strive to strike a balance so that the order neither prejudices the complainant nor causes unnecessary harassment to the accused.29
In addition to the above, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, via Section 205(2) has bestowed upon the Magistrate a judicial discretion to direct the physical appearance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. Such power of the Magistrate to direct the physical appearance of the accused is mostly deployed where the Magistrate is of the opinion that such direction is necessary for effective administration of justice.30 Further, in S.V. Muzumdar v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.31, the Supreme Court also held that such discretion can also be exercised by the Magistrate where it appears to him that the exemption granted under Section 205(1) of the Code has been or is likely to be abused by the accused thus prejudicially affecting the rights of the victim and/or the witnesses.
Nevertheless, there are certain instances where the Magistrates have taken a conservative approach in granting exemption from physical appearance duly upheld by the Supreme Court. One of the landmark judgments in this regard is that of Lily Begum v. Joy Chandra Nagbanshi32. In the instant case, the petitioner, who was accused of heinous and serious offences like rape, cheating and criminal intimidation, had approached the High Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings which was, however, dismissed but the High Court overturned the order passed by the Magistrate to exempt the accused from physical appearance thus allowing him to appear through his counsel. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the order of the Magistrate on the ground that if in case of offences involving moral turpitude like that of rape, such privilege is extended to the accused, the general public will lose confidence in the administration of justice.
The Orissa High Court in Anam Charan Behera v. State of Orissa33 upheld the order passed by the learned Magistrate in rejecting an application of the accused for appearance through his counsel on the ground that in a case pending for more than 16 years, the appearance of the accused could not be secured even after issuance of warrants and, therefore, benefit under Section 205 ought not to be extended to him.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rajan Kohli v. State of Haryana34 held that there is no vested right in the accused to an exemption from physical appearance and it is the duty of the Magistrate to decide in accordance with furtherance of justice.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mohd. Sajid Qureshi v. R. Prathap35 upheld the dismissal of the exemption petitions by the Magistrate on the ground that the petitioners ought to have filed an affidavit with the petition stating unambiguously the constraints faced by them in attending the Court and also that if the proceedings are continued in their absence, they shall not dispute their identity at a later stage of the proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court in Asif v. State of U.P.36 refused to interfere with the order of rejection passed by the Magistrate on the ground that the appearance of the accused at the stage of framing of charge is essential for the trial proceedings.
It transpires from the above discussion that the accused does not have any inherent right to claim exemption from physical appearance as a matter of entitlement. The sole discretion lies with the Magistrate hearing such application to decide whether or not the accused is entitled to such discretionary relief. Even pendency of an application under Section 205 does not disentitle the Magistrate to direct for physical appearance of the accused person. The accused is under an obligation to satisfy the Magistrate as to what exceptional grounds exist that warrant the exercise of discretion in his favour.
Whether exemption from physical appearance can be granted before bail is obtained
There are two modes of trial proceedings prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — summons case37 and warrant case38. While a warrants case deals with an offence that is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for any term exceeding two years whereas summons case deals with all other offences where the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
In general, a Magistrate entertains applications under Section 205 of the Code in summons triable cases. Incidentally, one thing also must be kept in mind that in summons cases too, warrant can be issued by the learned Magistrate if the accused deliberately fails to appear post-issuance of summons.
An interesting topic of debate that is still ongoing is whether an application for exemption from physical appearance can still be entertained by the Magistrate once a warrant has been issued against the accused. There are conflicting judgments on this aspect although the recent trend is more liberal qua the favourable grant of exemption.
The Allahabad High Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. State of U.P.39 had held that in a warrant triable case, the accused is required to first appear in the Court physically and take bail and furnish bail bond or sureties and only subsequent to that, an application for exemption will be maintainable.
The Kerala High Court in Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. Joshi Varghese40 had also held that post appearance of the accused before the Magistrate and taking bail on executing bonds, an application for exemption could be preferred and decided.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Chanchala v. Megh Singh41 refused to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by the learned Magistrate holding that an application for dispensation of personal appearance could only be entertained once the accused physically appears before the Court and obtains bail.
In sharp contrast to the conservative view taken by the High Courts in the aforementioned cases, many other High Courts have taken a liberal view holding that there is nothing contained in Section 205 of the Code to deem that such an application for exemption could only be preferred and entertained post obtaining of bail by the accused.
The Patna High Court in Manish Gai v. State of Bihar42 held that it is incorrect law to hold that once warrant is issued after issuance of summons at the first instance, the scope of extending the benefit to the accused under Section 205 of the Code ceases to operate.
The Orissa High Court in Debasis Samantaray v. State of Orissa43 held that by virtue of the sole reason that a non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued by the Court, it would not be justifiable to reject an application under Section 205 of the Code.
Finally, the Supreme Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P.44 had settled this long-standing confusion by categorically holding that Section 205 of the Code ought not to be read in a restrictive manner to construe that application for exemption from physical appearance could be granted only after obtaining of bail by the accused. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Magistrate is empowered to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused while issuing summons and allow him to appear through a counsel even prior to obtaining bail.
Corresponding provision under BNSS, 2023
With an objective to introduce a holistic reform in the criminal laws in India, the Central Government repealed the Penal Code, 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Evidence Act, 1872, and replaced them with the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, respectively, with effect from 1 July 2024. The new Sanhitas were propounded to keep them in tandem with the necessity of the hour. The corresponding provision of Section 205 of the Code is Section 228 of the Sanhita. The spirit and wordings continue to be identical qua the provision for exemption from physical appearance.
The courts of law continue to hold a liberal approach on the question of exemption from personal appearance under the Sanhita too. The Supreme Court in Dattatraya v. Sharanappa45 held that the Magistrate should adopt a liberal approach with respect to the attendance of the accused and until the presence of the accused is indispensable, the courts can grant exemption in favour of the accused persons.
Conclusion
From the aforesaid discussion, it is amply clear that the issue of exemption from physical appearance before a court exercising criminal jurisdiction lies within the exclusive domain of the Magistrate in seisin over such application whereas the accused has no unfettered right to claim such benefit ipso facto. However, the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts of the country have prescribed that the Magistrate should adopt a liberal approach and not be hyper-technical in deciding such an exemption application in favour of the accused.
Even having said that, there is one subtle element that is going unseen is the need for the accused to remain present during the criminal proceedings for his own sake. At the cost of obtaining an interim relief of not undergoing the hassle to remain present before the Court on every date of the proceeding, the accused is actually missing the opportunity to witness the day-to-day events of the criminal proceedings which might eventually benefit him during the advanced stage of trial, i.e. during cross-examination or arguments. It is true that the counsel representing the accused would have to remain present in the Court on every date, but it would not be possible for him to take note of the minutest flaw in the factual matrix presented by the prosecution since the accused is alone the master custodian of the facts involved in the case. The accused would be the best person to point it out to his counsel the flaw in the prosecution case so that the road towards his acquittal becomes smoother. It is equally true that where an accused lives far off from the venue of the case proceedings or where his health condition is too fragile to attend the Court on daily basis, the application for exemption extends a great amount of relief to the accused persons.
Further, with the advent of BNSS, 2023, the appearance of the accused via audio/video mode has also been introduced which the accused should take full advantage to keep a close vigil on the movement of the case. The Sanhita has provided for taking evidence and recording of statement of the accused via audio/video means which would enable the accused to remain updated on the course of the proceedings. The accused should be able to focus on the bigger goal of acquittal than a smaller success of exemption from physical appearance. The accused should also be conscious of this fact and, therefore, be inclined to take benefit of the provision of Section 205 of the Code on selective basis and not as blanket one. With the repeal of 150-years old Criminal Procedure Codes and introduction of the modern day Sanhitas, we are sure to witness many newer, wider and classic interpretations of the provision relating to exemption from physical appearance. There is no doubt that with the gradual change in socio-economic scenario in the country, the law will also evolve and many apt interpretations of the relevant provisions will also flow through various judicial pronouncements of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.
*Senior Legal Counsel, Tata Steel Limited. Author can be reached at sayan.sarkar@tatasteel.com|
1. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400.
2. 1891 AC 173.
3. (1598) 5 Co Rep 99b, 100a : 77 ER 209.
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Art. 10.
5. Mannam Venkata Krishna Rao v. State of A.P., 2022 SCC OnLine AP 3599.
6. Jairam v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 SCC OnLine Raj 315.
8. (2001) 7 SCC 401 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254.
9. (2020) 12 SCC 695 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 466.
10. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254.
11. Puneet Dalmia v. CBI, (2020) 12 SCC 695 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri) 466.
12. 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 2543.
16. 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 38293.
20. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 401 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1254.
23. (2011) 2 SCC 772 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 560 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 893.
24. (2009) 6 SCC 385 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1096.
25. Constitution of India, Art. 227(1).
26. (2006) 8 SCC 294 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 470.
27. (2003) 6 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545.
28. (2019) 17 SCC 193 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 281.
29. Ajay Kumar Bisnoi v. KEI Industries Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 10397.
30. Rameshwar Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2018) 4 SCC 608 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 585.
31. (2005) 4 SCC 173 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1020 : (2005) 125 Comp Cas 188.
32. (1994) 2 SCC 39 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 303.
37. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 2(w).
38. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 2(x).
45. (2024) 8 SCC 573 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 776 : (2024) 246 Comp Cas 603.
