Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 468 (DEL)

VINAY KAMAT v. STATE

2009-04-21

MOOL CHAND GARG

body2009
ORDER 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press this petition before this Court subject to the liberty that he can raise all the issues before the Trial Court, which have been raised in this petition for the purpose of submitting that no case is made out against the petitioner relying upon the following judgments: (i) Maksud Saiyad v. State of Gujarat, IX (2007) SL T 172=IV (2007) DLT (Crl.) 617 (SC)=IV (2007) CCR 303 (SC)=IV (2007) BC 568 (Sc)=JT (2007) 11 SC 276. (ii) Ashok Sikka v. State, 147 (2008) DLT 552. (iii) S. K. Alagh v. State ofU.P. & Ors., IV (2008) BC 622 (SC)=I (2008) CCR 354 (SC)=II (2008) SLT 301=1 (2008) DLT (Crl.) 830 (SC). (iv) KC. Gupta & Ors. v. State & Anr., 149 (2008) DLT 376=11 (2008) DLT (Crl.) 352. (v) Avnish Bajaj v. State, 150 (2008) DLT 769=2008 (3) JCC 1726. 2. Counsel for the petitioner further prays that petitioner be exempted from personal appearance before the Trial Court as he is working in Mumbai. 3. In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the following directions to the trial Court: (i) The Trial Court will exempt the petitioner from personal appearance subject to his being represented there through Counsel till orders are passed on the question of framing of charge. (ii) The Trial Court will consider the submissions of the petitioner in support of his claim that no case is made out against him in light of the judgments cited above as also any other submission advanced by the petitioner in this regard. 4. Parties to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed before it. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back forthwith. A copy of this order be also sent to the trial Court. Ordered accordingly.