High CourtsSingle Bench

Mukesh D. Ambani and Another vs The State of Bihar and Another

Patna High Court · Decided on 6 October 2004 · Citation: (2005) 1 PLJR 224

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nagendra Rai, Acting C.J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 205 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120(B), 465, 467, 468, 469
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Rev. No. 630 of 2004
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 244 words

Nagendra Rai, A.C.J.

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This application has been filed by the petitioners who are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Reliance Industries Limited for setting aside a part of the order dated 20.9.2004 whereby their application u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected.

2.

A complaint was filed with regard to wrong billing of a mobile phone in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. It is not the assertion that the petitioners were present at Patna on the date of occurrence or they have any hand in the preparation of the bill.

3.

Be that as it may, the matter is only with regard to the dispensation of their personal appearance u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the fact that the petitioners are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the aforesaid industry, they are busy businessmen and they have to move at various places of the country as also abroad, I am of the view that this is a fit case for allowing the prayer.

4.

As such the application filed on behalf of the petitioners u/s 205 of the Code is allowed and their personal appearance is dispensed with subject to the presence of the petitioners as and when required by the Court in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of.