SMT. KEYA MUKHERJEE versus MAGMA LEASING LIMITED & ANR.

SMT. KEYA MUKHERJEE versus MAGMA LEASING LIMITED & ANR.

The accused must generally be examined personally under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. except in summons cases; however, in cases of genuine hardship, courts may allow written answers from the accused, provided proper procedures are followed and affidavits submitted. The High Court correctly rejected the appellant's prayer for exemption as no exceptional exigency was demonstrated.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Keya Mukherjee; Respondents: Magma Leasing Limited & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Calcutta High Court Affirming Rejection of Exemption From Personal Examination Under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.p.c.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Examination of Accused Under Section 313 Cr.p.c., Exemption From Personal Presence, Summons Case Procedure, Natural Justice
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Examination of Accused Under Section 313 Cr.p.c. Exemption From Personal Presence Summons Case Procedure Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Keya Mukherjee

Appellant

Magma Leasing Limited & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Order of Calcutta High Court Affirming Rejection of Exemption From Personal Examination Under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.p.c.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused can be exempted from personal examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in cases other than summons cases
  2. 2 Whether the court can allow alternative means for accused to answer questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in cases of hardship

Ratio Decidendi

The accused must generally be examined personally under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. except in summons cases; however, in cases of genuine hardship, courts may allow written answers from the accused, provided proper procedures are followed and affidavits submitted. The High Court correctly rejected the appellant's prayer for exemption as no exceptional exigency was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The High Court's order is upheld; no interference warranted.
  • No exemption from personal examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was granted.