9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng such proclamation. Admittedly the accused no.1 i.e. Olga Kozireva in the complaint was admitted to bail but absconded thereafter. The non-bailable warrant has already been issued against the Olga Kozireva but could not be executed. Thereafter the appropriate procedure which was required to be followed by the Trial Court to issue the proclamation against Olga Kozireva for appearance at specified place and at specified time. The Trial Court was not required to drop the proceedings as per the impugned order. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and accordingly set aside. The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps further in accordance with law in case the non-bailable warrant received unexecuted due to reason whatsoeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The concerned Trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2008 issued the fresh non-bailable warrant against Olga Kozireva, returnable on 21.08.2009. On 21.08.2009 request for forwarding the warrants against Olga Kozireva to the Ministry of External Affairs for execution was filed and the matter was adjourned for 03.07.2010 for issuance of fresh non bailable warrant. The report was filed on 03.07.2010 but the Court of ACMM, New Delhi passed orders dropping/dismissing the proceedings against Olga Kozireva. The order dated 03.07.2010 is read as under:- In the facts and circumstances, there is no justification for this Court to make any request for extradition on it shown affidavit. It is not intimated that the department has any proposal to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest for extradition and there was nothing on the record to show that the Department has any proposal to request for extradition of Olga Kozireva. It was also reported that the non-bailable warrant against the accused no.1 i.e. Olga Kozireva cannot be executed except through extradition channel and accordingly the proceedings against the accused no.1 i.e. Olga Kozireva were ordered to be dropped. 7. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the concerned Trial Court should not drop or dismiss the proceedings against the respondent no.1 in case the complainant has failed to take steps for execution of non-bailable warrant against the accused no.1 i.e. Olga Kozireva. 8. The section 82 Cr.P.C. deals with proclamation for the person Abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 2001 and is facing trial since last more than 20 years. Due to delay in the trial, the respondent no.2/applicant is facing inconvenience physically and financially. The Trial Court has already granted last opportunity to the prosecution to conclude the trial but the prosecution has not taken any steps to conclude the trial. The respondent no.2 is the only accused who is facing the trial. This Court in Crl.M.C. No. 2910/2021 vide order dated 22.12.2021 has already directed to the concerned Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest on day-to-day basis. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2021 has directed the Trial Court that the Trial Court shall not pass the final judgment till the disposal of the present petition. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
