Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESH CHAWLA versus STATE & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAMESH CHAWLA v STATE & ORS. - CRLMP Case No. 1036 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2440 (3 May 2007)

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1036/2006

(Ramesh Chawla Vs. State & Anr.)

Date of order : 3.5.2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. A.K. Acharya, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Public Prosecutor.

Mr. Lalit Pareek, for the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.

As per the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was directed to remain present on 14.7.2006 vide order dated 6.3.2006 by the trial court. However, the said date given by the court was interpolated and petitioner noted the next date of hearing as 14.7.2006.

Obviously, the petitioner was required to remain present on 14.7.2006 but due to interpolation, the date was changed as 12.5.2006. On that day, due to non-appearance of the petitioner again the case was ordered to be listed on 17.5.2006. On that day also, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Therefore, ex-parte order was passed.

As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the next date of hearing was given to him as 14.7.2006 vide order dated 6.3.2006 by the trial court. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to appear before the court on 12.5.2006 and 17.5.2006.

Therefore, he prayed that the order dated 17.5.2006 may be set aside.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the order dated 17.5.2006 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial court with the direction that the matter may be decided after hearing the complainant afresh. It is also observed that the inquiry so instituted as informed vide letter dated 23.4.2007 against the concerned employee may also be expeditiously preferably concluded within a period of two months from today and the result thereof may be communicated to this Court. The explanation given by the Special Judge (Prohibition of Corruption) Act vide letter dated 23.4.2007 is accepted.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the misc. petition is disposed.

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun


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.