1 IN THE HGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.987/2010 (Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Raj.) Date of Order : 29.07.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this misc. petition, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that against the order of cognizance dated 23.3.2007 passed against him, a revision petition was filed. In the revision petition, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali quashed the cognizance order, after remand, learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and passed apeaking order dated 20.1.2010 but in pursuance of the said order, the plea was recorded by the trial Court in absence of the petitioner which is not proper because after taking cognizance again petitioner was required to be summoned because after quashing earlier order of cognizance by the revisional Court dated 10.6.2009 in revision he was not before the trial Court. 2 The petitioner is not challenging the order dated 20.1.2010 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by speaking order. The grievance of the petitioner is that plea has been recorded in his absence. I have perused the material placed on record. It appears that after taking cognizance while considering the entire material on record, the plea was recorded by the trial Court in absence of the petitioner, therefore, there is substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that after quashing the earlier order of cognizance, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for passing speaking order and once the earlier cognizance order was quashed then there was no occasion for the petitioner to appear before the trial Court. The petitioner was require to appear before the trial Court after passing fresh order of cognizance. In this case, though in compliance of the remand order, the trial Court passed speaking order but without summoning the petitioner, plea was recorded in his absence. In this view of the matter, this criminal misc. petition is partly allowed. The order of recording plea dated 5.2.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside and learned trial Court is directed to issue 3 process again to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of cognizance dated 20.1.2010 for securing his presence. It is also made clear that petitioner is not challenging th order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the trial Court. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J arun