AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 193 wordsS.S. Nijjar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
In my view, this petition can be disposed of by granting exemption to the petitioner from personal appearance in the trial Court during the pendency of the matter. This order is necessary in view of the fact that proceedings have been pending against the pe-titioner since the year 1988. Even the challan was presented on 22.3.1995. The charge has been framed on 6.7.1995. Mr. Sidhu has brought to the notice of this Court that charge against the petitioner has been framed only u/s 406 IPC. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are perhaps time barred. However, 1 am of the opinion that these matters would be considered by the trial court at an appropriate stage and it would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direct ion that the personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court.
Petition allowed.