Delhi District Court
Cr No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai vs . State) on 19 May, 2011
CR No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai Vs. State)
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 (SOUTH) :
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CR No. 24/11
Unique Case ID No.: 02406R0118302011
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Ghai,
S/o Late Sh. DN Ghai,
R/o 2, Aashirwad, Ballupura,
Dehradun (Uttranchal). ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State
2. Sh. JK Gulati
S/o Late Sh. Ram Saran Dass Gulati
R/o D42, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi. .... Respondents
Revision petition u/S.397 Cr.P.C. against
the order of Ld. MM dated 07.05.2011
Date of Institution : 16.05.2011
Arguments Heard on: 19.05.2011
Date of Decision: 19.05.2011
Page 1 of 6
CR No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai Vs. State)
O R D E R
1.0 Vide this order, I propose to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 07.05.2011 whereby Ld. MM revoked the permanent exemption granted to the petitioner through Sh. Vijay Agarwal, Adv. and fixed the case for 28/5/2011 for appearance of the accused and cross examination of the complainant witness. Aggrieved of this, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
2.0 Upon filing of the revision petition, notice was issued to the respondent / complainant and TCR was called. The notice issued to the respondent has not been received back.
3.0 I propose to dispose of the revision petition today itself since a short question is involved and matter can be proceeded further before the Ld. Trial Court. Sh. DM Bhalla, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact Sh. Vijay Agarwal, Adv on account of his preoccupation in other case could not appear on 7/5/2011 before the Ld. Trial Court on that particular date. It has been submitted that on earlier occasion the petitioner has duly been represented through Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv. Page 2 of 6
CR No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai Vs. State) 4.0 I have heard the submissions made and have gone through the TCR carefully.
5.0 It is an old case of year 2003 and the case is still on the stage of the complainant evidence. Perusal of the record has indicated that a SLP was filed by the complainant in which an interim stay was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, on 13/8/2010, the SLP filed by the complainant was dismissed. Initially, the permanent exemption was granted to the petitioner on 16/4/2007 by the Ld. Trial Court through Sh. Vijay Agarwal on the following conditions:
i). That accused shall not dispute his identity during trial;
ii). that accused shall appear on each and every date through his counsel Sh. Vijay Aggarwal;
iii). that the accused shall appear in the Court as and when required by this Court; and,
iv). that the accused shall not have any objection if the evidence is taken in his absence.
5.1 On 7/12/2010 since neither the accused nor Ld. counsel was present, Ld. Trial Court directed the accused to appear in person. Page 3 of 6
CR No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai Vs. State) On 7/1/2011, Ld. Trial Court after taking into account, the submissions of the accused and the complainant, inter alia observed that as per record, accused had appeared regularly through Counsel Sh. Vijay Aggarwal and the absence of the accused on the last date was a solitary instance. Ld. Trial Court taking into account the same, allowed the application of the accused for exemption through Counsel Sh. Vijay Aggarwal. However, it was mentioned that in case of any subsequent default in appearance by the Counsel of the accused, the grant of permanent exemption shall be terminated and no further relaxation shall be granted to the accused. The accused was also directed to file fresh undertaking as directed vide order dated 16/4/07.
5.2 On 7/5/2011, when the case was fixed for cross examination of the complainant, again an adjournment was sought on the ground that Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv was busy in 2G Scam case and Ld. Trial Court inter alia observed that adjournment sought was not legally tenable and accused is adopting dilatory tactics to stretch the trial. The permanent exemption granted to the accused / petitioner was also revoked. 6.0 I consider that on 7/5/2011, Ld. Trial Court rightly restrained itself from issuing any coercive process against the petitioner and merely Page 4 of 6 CR No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai Vs. State) directed the accused / petitioner to appear in person on 28/5/2010 for the cross examination of the complainant witness. In such like cases, the appearance can be exempted, if it is not resulting in the delay of the trial. Sh. DM Bhalla, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that accused is a diabetic patient and resides in Dehradun. It may be very difficult for him to come and appear before the Ld. Trial Court on each and every date, therefore, he may be exempted through Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv as well as Sh. Naveen Kapila, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner undertakes that no delay shall take place on account of non appearance of the petitioner as one of the two advocates i.e. Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv and Sh. Naveen Kapila, Adv will appear before the Ld. Trial Court on the date fixed. In view of the submissions made, let the petitioner appear in person before the Ld. Trial Court on 28/5/2011 and on that day the petitioner may move an application for permanent exemption through his counsel Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Adv and Sh. Naveen Kapila, Adv and Ld. Trial Court may taking into account, the conduct of the petitioner, consider the same as per law. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed off. Since these are five connected matters and permanent exemption has been revoked in all such cases, Ld. Trial Court would consider the question of granting Page 5 of 6 CR No.2411 (Sanjay Ghai Vs. State) personal exemption in all connected cases also.
7.0 A copy of this order along with TCR be sent back to the trial court.
7.1 Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court (Dinesh Kumar Sharma) Today on 19.05.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02(South) Saket Courts / New Delhi Page 6 of 6