VIJAY BHUSHAN PANDEY Vs. SESSIONS JUDGE, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) T . -Heard Sri Vikash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri H.C. Pandey, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

(2.) IN the criminal Case No. 2831/2001 Kulwant Singh v. Vijay Bhushan Pandey and others, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 12.3.2004 observed that the complainant was present on the date fixed before the Court while on behalf of the accused an application for exemption of his personal attendance was moved but the application was not pressed by anyone. The case was fixed for the disposal of the objection filed by the accused. The learned Court also rejected the said objection on the date fixed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date fixed when the order was passed the learned counsel of the accused -petitioner was busy in his personal work and hence he moved an application for exemption of the accused as well as for adjournment, but the Court below dismissed the objection filed on behalf of the petitioner without hearing the counsel. The learned A.G.A refuted the contention and it was contended that the learned counsel should have pressed the application or should have appeared before the Court so that the case may be adjourned and the personal attendance of the accused could have been exempted.