J.C. Gilhotra vs Union Territory on 5 November, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                     CRM M-31031 of 2009 (O/M).
                                  Date of Decision : November 05, 2009.

J.C. Gilhotra
                                                             ...... Petitioner(s).
                                    Versus.

Union Territory, Chandigarh                                ..... Respondent(s).

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:- Mr. R.C. Setia, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging

the order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Special

Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the Trial Court had, on request made by

counsel for the petitioner, deferred the hearing of the case as counsel for the

petitioner was not prepared on arguments on charge with an observation that

it would consider the contention of the petitioner with regard to the

provisions of Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. as well as on the question of charge on

the next date of hearing, i.e. 04.11.2009.

Counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that now the case

stands adjourned to 09.11.2009.

He contends that the order passed by the learned Special Judge,

Chandigarh, is not in consonance with law as the requirement of law is that

the contention of the petitioner with regard to the sanction as provided under

Section 197 Cr.P.C. has to be first decided and thereafter, the charge has to

be framed. He admits that the same can be done simultaneously but by first
Criminal Misc. No. M-31031 of 2009. -2-

considering the contention with regard to the petitioner’s claim as made

under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through

the records of the case as also the order impugned herein.

The contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner is imbibed

in the order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure-P-2), where the Trial Court had

observed that both the matters shall be considered and decided together by

the Court. It goes without saying that the contentions of the petitioner with

regard to the sanctions as per provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. shall be

considered by the Trial Court prior to framing of charge.

Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands

dismissed.

Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the

Special Secretary of this Court.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
November 05, 2009.

sjks.