OMKAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the instant Cr.M.P. against the order dtd. 18/10/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC), Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.45/2020 (Crime No.64/2020), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 317 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") has been dismissed and arrest warrant has been issued against the applicant.

(3.) Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial for the offences punishable under Ss. 451, 354, 34 of IPC and Sec. 8 of the POCSO Act is going on against the petitioner and the petitioner is regularly appearing on every date of hearing. He further submits that before 18/10/2022, Shri A. K. Goyal, Advocate was regularly appearing on behalf of the petitioner, but on 18/10/2022 an application under Sec. 317 Cr.P.C. was moved by Shri S.P. Dubey, Adv. on behalf of the petitioner for exemption of petitioner before the Court on 18/10/2022 and he has also filed an application for adjournment as the original counsel Shri A. K. Goyal has gone to Raipur for his personal work therefore, he is unable to examine the witness. But the trial Court without considering the reasons assigned in the application properly, dismissed the application and ordered for issuance of arrest warrant. He further submits that in the application dtd. 18/10/2022, it is stated that petitioner is labour and had gone to some other place to earn his livelihood therefore, he could not appear on that day before the trial Court. Counsel also submits that for the fault of the counsel is not examining the witness the accused must not suffer. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and arrest warrant be cancelled.