2T o/o 03.6.2010 Present : Mr.Kuldeep Mansukhani, Adv. for petitioner no.1. Mr,Harish Gulati , Adv. for the CBl. +Crl.M A No.767312010 (exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions' Crl.M.C. No.1997'010 lssue notice. Mr.Gulati accepts notice on behalf of the CBl. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The primary grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial has been hanging fire for nearly 12 years. He submits that on account of the pendency of the trial, the petitioner has been suffering as he has not been promoted while his other contemporaries already stand promoted in service. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 31.3.2008, passed by this Court in Crl.M.C' No.1210/2007, filed by the petitioner challenging the sanction and proceedings before the Trial Court. That petition was disposed of by observing thatthe arguments on charge should be heard on 9'7.2008 and to pass appropriate orders thereon. lt appears that thereafter arguments were addressed and the Trial Court passed an order that the company M/s Arihant Cotsyn Ltd. should be summoned, as prima facie case under Section 120B read with Sections 420146714681471IPC and 13 (1) (d) and 12 (2) of the Prevention of r' -F, Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified tr ( A.. Corruption Act, are made out against the said company. Consequently, M/s Arihant Cotsyn Ltd was summoned on the said date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said company has already gone into liquidation. Mr.Gulati on the other hand submits that repeated effotts have been made to serve the said company but it has not been possible to serve the company as the premises on which the summons were taken were found locked and company was not found in existence at the given address. The grievances of the petitioner with regard to the delay in the proceedings of the case cannot be set to be unjustified. lt is for the State to serve the aforesaid company, which perhaps has gone into liquidation. The CBI should positively ascertain the status of the said company ie. as to whether it has gone into liquidation or not and if so, take appropriate steps under Sections 446 of the Companies Act from the Competent Court and also to serve the Liquidator, if any, appointed in respect of the said company' I am informed that the case is listed before the Trial Court tomorrow i.e. 4.6.2010. The Trial Court may fix a convenient date for summoning the company on a date after 4'8.2010. During the said period, the CBI shall positively take steps in the aforesaid terms to serve the company/ Official Liquidator and also to obtain the permission from the Company Court, if any. The Trial insofar as the petitioner and other accused are concerned should proceed expeditiously, even if the said company is not served/represented. The petition stands disposed of. The order be communicated through Special Messenger. to the Special Judge todaY itself June 3, 2010 'ns' VIPIN SANGHI, J r' /4 3 a( i.