EAST INDIA PRODUCE LTD Vs. NIRMAL KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE Nos. CRR. 1303 of 2009, CRR 1304 of 2009, CRR 1305 of 2009, CRR 1306 of 2009 and CRR 1307 of 2009 are being taken up together as the subject-matter is one and the same and the accused person is common to all the cases.

(2.) NOTICE has been returned with the remark "not claimed" and "refused". Accordingly, presumption of service is drawn.

(3.) NOW , the question is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have really interfered with the order of the learned Magistrate. If we go to V.K. Jain v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2000 SCC (Cr.) 302, we find a categorical observation that "This can be done only after making the first appearance in the court concerned ". Now, one of the Hon'ble Judges who was a party to V.K. Jain (supra) was also a party in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (Supra). In Bhaskar Industries Ltd. it was held that for the purpose of hearing of an application under Section 205 of Cr. P.C., it is not necessary that the accused has to appear as to enter first appearance or that without first appearance such an application cannot be heard or considered.