CHANDIGARH: Amidst tension and high drama, the Chief Judicial Magistrate last week exempted the Punjab Director General of Police, Mr. K.P.S. Gill, from personal appearance on the dates when his presence was not required in the ongoing case relating to his alleged misbehavior with Ms. Rupan Deol Bajaj, a senior woman IAS officer of the state.

 Meanwhile, the CJM, Mr. Shekhar Dhawan, dismissed the plea of her husband, Mr. B.R. Bajaj, also an IAS officer, seeking revival of a private complaint lodged by him and clubbing it with the FIR recorded by the police. All other applications moved by both sides have been fixed for pronouncement on November 23. ‘Mr. Gill, who came attired in a suit, was escorted by his security staff ash he came exactly at 10:00 a.m. While the Court was conducting the proceedings, outside the lawyers squatted on the floor and raised slogans against the local police and the super cop after they were not allowed to enter the court room.

Frailer, they had approached the Distract and Sessions Judge, Mr. Amar Dutt, who directed that they be permitted inside the court room, subject to availability of space. The door was slammed on newspersons too.

The advocates maintained that since the proceedings were not in camera they should be allowed in. There were heated exchanges with policemen, who had a tough time clearing the passage for Mr. Gill to go after the 10 minute court proceedings. The metal detectors were thrown aside by the irate lawyers  However, a move to call a general strike by lawyers turned futile after some “seasoned” advocate did not extend support.

The public prosecutor, Mr. R.L. Sharma, objected to the defense counsel’s plea on the ground that the ‘accused was facing charges as serious ‘as moral turpitude, so his presence was necessary. He said that it was responsibility of the state to make adequate securely arrangements. However, the CJM held that the trial had.to be completed within six months as per the directions of the Apex court and the accused should be present on certain days. This included the days when documents were to be supplied; the charges were lo be framed cross examination of the complainant and the eyewitnesses, statement of the accused and any other date for which the judge considers his personal appearance necessary.

Article extracted from this publication >> November 24, 1995