Before the trial court summons him/her to the defendant to face the trial, the trial court issued a notice to the trial court, which made the new provisions of the trial hold mandatory, which kept the judges of Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in “further lawsuits”.
Rathi Steel and Chief Executive Kushal Kumar Agarwal applied to the SC to object to the complaint of knowing ED (equivalent to the charge form) and were summoned by the court. Petitioner Attorney Vijay Aggarwal advocate believes that under BNSS Section 223, the defendant has the right to hear before being called by the trial court.
The lawyer believes that the above section stipulates: “The district judge shall not recognize the crime without giving the defendant a chance to be tried.”
Aggarwal further argued that the court may not even have the substantive right to call the defendant if the law is followed.
Article 223 applies only to “complaints” cases and not to cases investigated by police departments or CBIs.Ed’s reasons for opposition
Ed’s lawyers strongly opposed the defendant’s argument that the investigation in the case was conducted even before the BNSS came into effect, so the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) (1973) would rule the trial. Ed further argues that if the defendant’s argument is allowed, a lot of time in the court will be wasted. Regarding the litigation process, ED lawyers believe that since the matter is in the allegation framework, if the matter continues, unnecessary litigation process will be caused.
However, the bench did not find force in the dispute raised by Ed, but decided to keep the lawsuit between the two in the lawsuit until further orders.
