Crl. Misc. No. M-18614 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-18614 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 15, 2010 Jaspreet Singh @ Pinka Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. AS Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing of order dated 12.5.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in criminal case titled State versus Jaspreet Singh, relating to FIR No. 93 dated 27.7.2007 registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, whereby his application under Section 317 of the Code for permanent exemption was dismissed. Notice of this petition was given to the State and the same is being opposed by the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on its behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Crl. Misc. No. M-18614 of 2009 2 It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is serving in the Indian Army and it is not possible for him to get casual leave for appearing before the trial court on each and every date of hearing. He is being represented by counsel and he has no objection if prosecution evidence is recorded in the presence of his counsel and he will not challenge the evidence produced regarding his identification. The trial court refused the above said prayer of the petitioner on the ground that for proving the charge sheet against the accused his presence is required as the witnesses will not be able to depose about his identity in his absence and that he concealed the factum of the FIR from the Indian Army, while getting his job. It has not been disputed that the petitioner is serving in the Indian Army and it is not possible for him to keep away from the place of his duty off and on. It is also admitted fact that he is being represented by a counsel. It has been stated by him in the application under Section 317 of the Code itself that he will not challenge his identity. When such is the position, his personal appearance should have been exempted by the trial court. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 12.5.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is quashed. The personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted before the trial court, subject to the condition that his counsel shall not seek any adjournment for cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and at the time arguments, he will not challenge the prosecution evidence produced regarding identification and he shall appear before the trial court at the time of recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code. Crl. Misc. No. M-18614 of 2009 3 The petition is disposed of accordingly. January 15, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE