SURESH V CHATURVEDI Vs. AES CONTROL PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order dated 17.7.2003passedby Sh. A.K. Garg, learned Addl. Sessions Judge reflects the strange and preposterous way the application of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance was dealt with. Petitioner (accused No. 2) paid the price of engaging the same Counsel which his co-accused (accused No. 4) had engaged as the learned ASJ dismissed the application of the petitioner on the highly unjudicial premise that since similar application was made on behalf of accused No. 4 in an irresponsible manner on the last date by the Counsel who happens to be the Counsel of petitioner, he would not proceed on the presumption that the application on behalf of petitioner has been made today on proper instructions. Not only the application was dismissed but the most coercive process of non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against the petitioner.

(2.) To imagine that the Counsel was having similar instructions for the

(3.) Petitioner is stated to be one of the Directors of the Company of Bombay against whom complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending. He has been summoned as accused in his capacity as one of the Directors. On 17.7.2003 he was required to appear in the Court as on that day his application for recalling the summoning order and dropping the proceedings against him was fixed for arguments.