Criminal P.C. (1973), S.353(7) - Criminal trial - Judgment passed in absence of accused who was represented by his counsel - Counsel for accused not stating that accused wanted to tender any specific evidence or produce any material at the hearing on question of sentence - Therefore, held, the sentence is not vitiated on account of failure of Magistrate to hear the accused.
While it would have been undoubtedly ideal for the learned Magistrate to adjourn the pronouncement of judgment to a future date and to secure the presence of the appellant by causing a warrant to be issued against him, the appellant's absence is not a very serious infraction, particularly since he was represented by a counsel. It has not been stated by the counsel for appellant Sunilkumar before the Court that the appellant wanted to tender any specific evidence or produce any material at the hearing on the question of sentence. Therefore, whatever the appellant's counsel could have argued or submitted before the Trial Magistrate, he could have and, has, in fact, submitted before the High Court also. Therefore, the sentence is not vitiated on account of failure of the Magistrate to hear the appellant.
SUNILKUMAR S/O. GAYAPRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2009-ALL MR (Cri)-2038 (PARA 39)
