KANWAL NAIN BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order framing charge dated 1.5.2003 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to frame a charge under Section 498-A. I have heard counsel for the parties and find no good grounds to interfere at this stage.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is a resident of France and is doing business there. He submits that his personal appearance may be exempted but further undertakes to be represented through counsel and not claim any prejudice on account of his absence. He says that the petitioner shall be present in person as an when required by the trial court. Counsel for the State has no objection to this.

(3.) Having heard counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted. He shall be represented through counsel. He shall not claim any prejudice on account of his non-absence during evidence or at any other stage of the proceedings or shall not challenge his identity and shall be present before the trial court as and when required. With this Crl.Rev. 970/2003 is dismissed. Dasti.