Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJAN GUGHANI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajan Gughani v. State of Punjab and Another - CRM-72208-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10412 (13 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRL.M.No.72208-M of 2006

DATE OF ORDER:17.11.2006

Rajan Gughani

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Another

....Respondent(s)

CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL .*.*.*.

Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate.

M.M. AGGARWAL,J

This is petition against order dated 30.9.2006 passed by JMIC, Faridkot whereby trial Court had ordered that proceedings against Keemti Lal Jain be separated and trial should start as against remaining accused.

Present petitioner happens to be one of the remaining accused and authorized signatory.

Case is for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was filed by Karam Chand respondent No.2 as against Arihant Cotsy Ltd, Lovkesh Mahajan, Rajan Guglani and Keemti Lal.

It appears that this complaint was pending since 1999. Other two accused had put in appearance whereas Keemti Lal could not be CRL.M.No.72208-M of 2006 #2#

apprehended although warrants had been issued during the last about 5-6 years back and under these circumstances, trial Court had ordered that case of Keemti Lal be separated and trial should start as against other two accused.

Counsel for the petitioner argues that if Keemti Lal is not appearing then trial Court should have declared him as proclaimed offender and in that case, Keemti Lal would have surrendered and settled the dispute.

I have gone through the order. Even if trial Court could have adopted the method of declaring Keemti Lal as proclaimed offender, still this order does not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner.

I do not find any good ground to interfere.

Dismissed.

However, trial Court may consider the request for exemption from personal appearance of the petitioner sympathetically, if an application is made in this regard and the petitioner is represented by counsel.

November 17, 2006 ( M.M. AGGARWAL )

manoj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.