KANJI R BAROT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. The Advocate for the petitioner states that a private notice has been served to the second Respondent at his business address as well as at his residential address. She stated that a notice is also served to the Advocate for the second respondent appearing before the Appellate court. An Affidavit of service will be filed within a period of two weeks from today.

(2.) THE Petitioner has preferred an Appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code ). The Petitioner has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. An application was made by the Petitioner on 26th june 2008 for grant of exemption from attendance on the ground that he was required to attend a business meeting and that he was represented by an Advocate. The said application has been rejected by the learned VII Ad hoc Additional Sessions judge by order dated 2nd July 2008. While rejecting the said application, in paragraph 5 of the impugned order the learned Judge has observed thus ;

(3.) IT will be necessary to refer to the provision of section 387 of the said Code which reads as under : "387. Judgments of subordinate Appellate court.- The rules contained in Chapter xxvii as to the judgment of a Criminal Curt of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment in appeal of a Court of sessions or Chief Judicial magistrate: provided that unless the Appellate Court otherwise directs, the accused shall not be brought up, or required to attend, to hear judgment delivered.