HARIDWAR PAADEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By The Court. The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to challenge an order dated 16-12-1998, passed in course of the trial, by which the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna has declared the petitioner an absconder and has directed for issuance of a permanent warrant of arrest against him. As soon as the nature of the impugned order was stated, the question that first came to mind was why should not the petitioner respond by simply appearing before the trial Court and satisfy it that he was willing to face the trial. Mr. K. N. Choubey, learned Senior Counsel sought to answer the question by trying to paint a distressing picture of the petitioner's health. According to him the petitioner in his present condition of health was unable to appear before the Court and in those circumstances the trial Court was not justified in declaring him an absconder and issuing a permanent warrant of arrest against him. At the conclusion of the sub-missions, however, I remain completely unsatisfied with the pleas advanced for the petitioner's failure to appear before the Court.

(2.) It may be noted here that the petitioner's trial has a long and chequerd history. The matter came to this Court more than once and also went to the Supreme Court which initially laid down the deadline of December 31, 1998 for the conclusion of the trial. Thereafter, on a petition filed by the prosecution the Supreme Court by order dated 12-12-1998 directed for the deletion of the direction, from its earlier order dated 12-5-1998 that the proceedings would stand quashed if the trial was not concluded on or before December 31, 1998. it is under these circumstances that the trial proceeded and it is now at the stage of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Mr. Choubey was fail in admitting that before reaching the stage of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the trial Court was quite liberal with the petitioner's prayer under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was allowed to remain absent practically on all dated such prayer was made. It is also an admitted position that the prosecution evidence was closed on or about 28-8-1998 and thereafter the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on any of the dates fixed in the case. All attempts to summon him to the trial having failed the Court was Finally left with no option but to pass the impugned order on 16-12-1998.