Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 267 (UTT)

Vijay Bhushan Pandey v. Sessions Judge, Dehradun

2004-10-13

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2004
JUDGMENT Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, ,T.-Heard Sri Vikash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri H.C. Pandey, learned A.G.A and perused the record. 2. In the criminal Case No. 2831/2001 Kulwant Singh v. Vijay Bhushan Pandey and others, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 12.3.2004 observed that the complainant was present on the date fixed before the Court while on behalf of the accused an application for exemption of his personal attendance was moved but the application was not pressed by anyone. The case was fixed for the disposal of the objection filed by the accused. The learned Court also rejected the said objection on the date fixed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date fixed when the order was passed the learned counsel of the accused-petitioner was busy in his personal work and hence he moved an application for exemption of the accused as well as for adjournment, but the Court below dismissed the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner without hearing the counsel. The learned A.G.A refuted the contention and it was contended that the learned counsel should have pressed the application or should have appeared before the Court so that the case may be adjourned and the personal attendance of the accused could have been exempted. 4. I have gone through the record which reveals that there was none present before the Court below to press the application for adjournment as well as the application for extemption of personal attendance of the accused. If the accused or his counsel had filed any application, the accused or his counsel should have remained present in the Court to press the application. It is not the duty of the Court to call the accused or his counsel to appear before the Court. The learned lower Court has rightly rejected the application of the accused-petitioner. I do not find any force in the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However it is made clear that the objection which has already been taken by the accused in the case, he can also agitate these points during the trial. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally.