R VENKATESAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Applicant had filed application for discharge before the trial Court in respect of a pending trial against him for offences punishable under the provisions of The Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. That application has been rejected by the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay by judgment and Order dated November 20, 2003, essentially on the ground that the applicant cannot be heard on his discharge application because he is an absconding accused. It is matter of record that proclamation proceedings were taken out and order has been passed against the applicant in that behalf. Besides, non-bailable warrants are pending against the applicant in connection with the trial, which is pending before the lower Court since 1998. The applicant has so far successfully avoided arrest and is stated to be residing in U. S. A.

(3.) The moot question, therefore, which arises for my consideration is: whether any fault can be found with the approach of the lower Court in rejecting the discharge application merely because the applicant is an absconding accused