ANUBHAV PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2011, passed by the learned Lower Revisional Court, whereby the Petitioner was directed to appear before the learned trial court on 05.02.2011. He has also challenged the order 14.02.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the Petitioner's application for extension of time for appearing before the learned trial court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that an FIR, FIR No. 186/2009, was registered against the Petitioner at Police Station Bagru for offences under Sections 420, 406, 447 IPC. After a thorough investigation, the charge -sheet was filed under Section 299 Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims that he subsequently moved an application under Section 70(2) Code of Criminal Procedure for converting the arrest warrants into bailable one. However, vide order dated 12.01.2011, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Thereafter, he moved a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Vide order dated 27.1.2011, the learned Judge not only allowed the revision petition, but also directed the Petitioner to appear before the learned trial court on 5.2.2011. The Petitioner claims that while he was in Kolkata, he had fallen ill. Therefore, he could not appear before the learned trial court on 5.2.2011. Therefore, he moved the application before the revisional court for extension of time. Vide order dated 14.2.2011, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, has not opposed the prayer made by the Petitioner.