KRISHNA BAHADUR LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, nay the State counsel, it appears that the first information report was lodged against the revisionist on 12.1.2005, the investigation in pursuance whereof resulted into the submission of chargesheet on 9.12.2005 for the offences under Sections 420/423 IPC against him. It further appears that the revisionist thereafter filed the C482 petition no.380/2006 before this Court seeking to quash the said chargesheet, which was dismissed on 6.3.2012, wherein the entire merits as well as the arguments raised by learned counsel for revisionist for quashing of chargesheet, were considered in detail, but the Court did not find any substance therein and accordingly, ordered for commencement of trial. Subsequently thereafter, the revisionist filed a special leave petition before the Apex Court, which too met with the same fate of dismissal on 5.6.2012.

(2.) Subsequently thereafter, revisionist moved an application before the concerned Magistrate seeking his discharge u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and also praying for exemption from his personal attendance in the court u/s 205 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments of accused, the court below has rejected both the applications, moved u/s 205 Cr.P.C. and also u/s 239 Cr.P.C., and granted twenty days' time to the revisionist to surrender, and in case of failure, it was directed that the coercive measures will be adopted against him for ensuring his attendance.

(3.) Before this Court, learned counsel for the revisionist, while referring to the provisions of Sections 227, 239 and 240 Cr.P.C., has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.