Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Bajaj vs State on 10 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBIIII, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 29/14
Vijay Kumar Bajaj .........Petitioner
Vs.
State ........Respondent
File received on assignment on : 05.07.2014
Arguments heard on : 10.07.2014
Order announced on : 10.07.2014
ORDER :
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 04.03.2014 passed by Ld. MM, M.C NorthWest, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby application of the petitioner seeking permanent exemption from personal appearance was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner sought his permanent exemption from personal appearance for the reasons mentioned in paras 2 to 4 of his application dated 05.07.2012 moved before the trial court and the same are reproduced as hereunder : Criminal Revision No.29/14 Page 1 of 5 Vijay Kumar Bajaj Vs. State "2. That the applicant is working as a Private contractor in Lucknow and there is no one to help the applicant in the said business as his only son is working in Merchant Navy and staying abroad on ships. The daughter of the applicant is doing Engineering from Gaziabad and even the wife of the applicant is not keeping well.
3. That the applicant is permanent resident of Lucknow and it is very difficult for him to come on every date of hearing as he has to spend lot of amount for traveling.
4. That the applicant is suffering from Heart problems, Diabetes, high blood pressure, Arthritis etc. and is not in a position to travel long distances."
3. I have heard Sh. Shailender Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ld. MM erred in law and on facts in not granting permanent exemption to the petitioner from his personal appearance. According to him, 17 judgments were cited before the trial court but not a single judgment has been mentioned in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgments Basanti Devi Vs. State, Crl. MC 2231/2010 decided on 16.7.2010 by Delhi High Court; State of Punjab Vs. Hari Singh, decided on 16.02.2009 by Supreme Court; State of M P Vs. Suresh Kaushal, 2001 (2), ALD Cri. 330; Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401; T P Raju Vs. State of Criminal Revision No.29/14 Page 2 of 5 Vijay Kumar Bajaj Vs. State Kerala, Crl. M.C No.1820 of 2009, decided on 10.06.2009 by High Court of Kerala; Basheer Ahmad Vs. State of Kerala, Crl. MC No. 680 of 2011 decided on 16.03.2011 by High Court of Kerala; Basavaraj R Patil Vs. State of Karnataka, decided on 11.10.2000 by Supreme Court; Savitri Devi Vs. State, ILR 1987 Delhi 319; Geeta Sethi Vs. The State, 2001 Cri.L.J 2659; S V Mazumdar Vs. Gujrat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd., Appeal (crl.) 609 of 2005 decided on 25.04.2005 by Supreme Court; Manish Gai Vs. State of Bihar,2007 Cri.L.J. 1358; Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2005 Cri.L.J 440; Chandu Lal Chadraker Vs. Puran Mal, 1989 Cri.L.J. 296; Shri Chandramauli Prasad Vs. State of Delhi, Crl. M.C. No. 1303/2008 decided on 03.07.08 by Delhi High Court; Harjinder Singh Vs. Rajender Bhardwaj, Crl. Misc. No. 31195M of 2004 decided on 29.03.2010 by Punjab & Haryana High Court, Bharat Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2006 (3) JCR 111 Jhr and Rizwan and Sarafat Vs. State of UP, decided on 11.04.2005 by Allahabad High Court.
4. On the other hand Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.
5. I have gone through the trial court record. I have also gone through the judgments cited before me.
Criminal Revision No.29/14 Page 3 of 5 Vijay Kumar Bajaj Vs. State
6. It is against judicial propriety not to mention the judgments relied upon by the parties in the orders passed by the court. The court must mention the judgments cited by the parties in its orders even if it considers them to be irrelevant and not applicable to the facts of the case. It is very difficult for the higher courts to ascertain whether the judgments were in fact cited by the parties before the trial court, if the same are not reflected in the orders. However, in the present case, from the trial court record it is clear that 17 above referred judgments were cited as the bunch of judgments is tagged with the trial court record.
7. In view of the law laid down by the Higher Courts and having regard to the averments made in the present petition, particularly, in view of the fact that petitioner is suffering from heart problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, arthritis and that he is working as a private contractor in Lucknow and there is no one to help the applicant in the said business, it is deemed appropriate to exempt the petitioner from his personal appearance in the matter pending before the trial court subject to the following conditions:
(a) That petitioner shall not dispute his identity as the particular Criminal Revision No.29/14 Page 4 of 5 Vijay Kumar Bajaj Vs. State accused in the case;
(b) That a counsel on his behalf will appear for him in the court when the case is taken up and
(c) That he himself will be present in the court when his presence is imperatively needed.
8. In these circumstances and for the abovesaid reasons, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 04.03.2014 passed by Ld. M.M qua the petitioner is set aside. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of the order and revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Praveen Kumar) today on 10.07.2014. Spl. Judge CBIIII, P. C. Act, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
Criminal Revision No.29/14 Page 5 of 5 Vijay Kumar Bajaj Vs. State