Criminial Misc. No.M-20278 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminial Misc. No.M-20278 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.10.2009 Piara Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Umesh Kumar Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. Facts, conceded at the time of arguments by the learned counsel for the parties, in the first instance:- In this FIR pertaining to the year 1996, the petitioner accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, for the first time, on 16.12.1997. On that very date, he applied for the grant of exemption from personal appearance for 20.12.1997. The plea was allowed. However, the petitioner did not appear thereafter and was declared a proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner refrained from entering appearance for the subsequent period of time as the Clerk attached to the learned defence counsel before the Trial Court informed him that he had been acquitted of the charge. The petitioner believed that averment and went overseas. The petitioner had no reason to doubt the representation made by the Clerk of the learned defence counsel. The petitioner defied the law for a period of about more than five Criminial Misc. No.M-20278 of 2009 -2- **** years. On his own showing, exemption from personal appearance had been granted only for one day. A prudent man would obviously not like to refrain from entering appearance just on the basis of whatever is verbally intimated to him by the Clerk of his counsel. By the very nature of things, a verdict of acquittal has to be announced by the Court. It cannot be announced by any other quarters at all and, that being so, it is illogical and indefensible on the part of the petitioner to justify his abstinence from appearance just on the basis of what the Clerk of his counsel allegedly told him. The petition for bail shall stand declined accordingly. However, since the FIR pertains to the year 1996, it is directed that the learned Trial Court shall conclude the trial itself within six months from the next date of hearing. October 12, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE