Full Text
Translation output
#13
21.12.2010
Present: Mr. Arvind Jain, Advocate with ~r; Harsh Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Ajay K. Bansal, Advocate ~ Mr. Amit Advocate for the petitioner. , Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the !State/respondent along with
ACP Prem Nath, PG Ceii!NW Distt ,and 51 Rakesh Rana.
I
I , +Cri.Rev. Pet. No.482/2010 & Cri.M.A. No.l4640/2010(stay)
I
Learned counsel for the petitioner s~bmits that apart from the merits of this case, the impugned order dated 28.05.2010 of the trial court
~~- I suffers from inherent defect for the reason thaton the date of hearing, the petitioner had moved an application seeking! adjournment on the ground
I
I , that his counsel was suffering from varicose yeins and was not in position
I i to stand and argue in the court. Despite I of the reason given in the
I
I application, the trial court proceeded to hear lth~ matter in absence of the
I counsel for the accused. This, as per thei counsel for the petitioner, ~ I amounts to denial of opportunity of being he~rd to the petitioner which is
[
I his legal right given to him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal r- i
Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitione~ submits that Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides thatl if upon consideration of the
I
I
I , record and the documents, the judge considers that there is not sufficient
! ground for proceeding against the accus~d, he shall discharge the
'i accused. He contended that in the instant case, though the learned
I
I i '
Additional Sessions judge has undergone the! routine of giving hearing to
I the petitioner, it would not amount to thel opportunity of hearing as
I envisaged under Section 227 of the Code pecause the petitioner was deprived of his right to have legal assistance of nis counsel.
2010:DHC:9975
I
I
Learned APP has fairly conceded that ith:e trial court ought to have adjourned the matter for a short date and heard the counsel for the petitioner on the point of charge before passing the impugned order.
Thus, she concedes that revision petition may be accepted and the matter
' be remanded back to the concerned court with the direction to rehear the arguments on the point of charge and pass th!e order in accordance with law.
,--'--- In view of the concession given at the bar and the law discussed r- i above, the impugned order dated 28.05.2010 and the charges framed against the petitioner consequent upon this :order are quashed. The i matter is remanded back with the directiOI]l that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge shall rehear arguments on tHe point of charge and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
DECEMBER 21, 2010 pst
-- . _l_ -- -
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2010:DHC:9975
21.12.2010
Present: Mr. Arvind Jain, Advocate with ~r; Harsh Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Ajay K. Bansal, Advocate ~ Mr. Amit Advocate for the petitioner. , Ms. Fizani Husain, APP for the !State/respondent along with
ACP Prem Nath, PG Ceii!NW Distt ,and 51 Rakesh Rana.
I
I , +Cri.Rev. Pet. No.482/2010 & Cri.M.A. No.l4640/2010(stay)
I
Learned counsel for the petitioner s~bmits that apart from the merits of this case, the impugned order dated 28.05.2010 of the trial court
~~- I suffers from inherent defect for the reason thaton the date of hearing, the petitioner had moved an application seeking! adjournment on the ground
I
I , that his counsel was suffering from varicose yeins and was not in position
I i to stand and argue in the court. Despite I of the reason given in the
I
I application, the trial court proceeded to hear lth~ matter in absence of the
I counsel for the accused. This, as per thei counsel for the petitioner, ~ I amounts to denial of opportunity of being he~rd to the petitioner which is
[
I his legal right given to him under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal r- i
Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitione~ submits that Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides thatl if upon consideration of the
I
I
I , record and the documents, the judge considers that there is not sufficient
! ground for proceeding against the accus~d, he shall discharge the
'i accused. He contended that in the instant case, though the learned
I
I i '
Additional Sessions judge has undergone the! routine of giving hearing to
I the petitioner, it would not amount to thel opportunity of hearing as
I envisaged under Section 227 of the Code pecause the petitioner was deprived of his right to have legal assistance of nis counsel.
2010:DHC:9975
I
I
Learned APP has fairly conceded that ith:e trial court ought to have adjourned the matter for a short date and heard the counsel for the petitioner on the point of charge before passing the impugned order.
Thus, she concedes that revision petition may be accepted and the matter
' be remanded back to the concerned court with the direction to rehear the arguments on the point of charge and pass th!e order in accordance with law.
,--'--- In view of the concession given at the bar and the law discussed r- i above, the impugned order dated 28.05.2010 and the charges framed against the petitioner consequent upon this :order are quashed. The i matter is remanded back with the directiOI]l that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge shall rehear arguments on tHe point of charge and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Petition stands disposed of.
DECEMBER 21, 2010 pst
-- . _l_ -- -
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
2010:DHC:9975
JUDGMENT