KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed as prayed for.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was on bail and during the pendency of the trial, he went abroad. Vide order dated 2.1.2003, he was declared proclaimed offender without following the mandatory provisions warranted under the law, whereas, no service was effected upon him and no efforts were made by the trial Court to serve him in any manner. All proceedings were conducted in the absence of the petitioner and he was not aware with regard to those proceedings as he was in abroad. Learned counsel further contends that co-accused of the petitioner were convicted by trial Court vide judgment dated 9.11.2006 but they were acquitted by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 24.9.2009. Learned counsel also contends that the allegations against the petitioner are same as to the other accused. Moreover, there was no willful absence on the part of the petitioner as he was not aware with regard to P.O. proceedings. It has wrongly been mentioned in the order dated 2.1.2003 that the petitioner avoided the service. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.