Revision petition challenging an order permitting the complainant to place a recently discovered promissory note on record under Section 311 Cr.P.C. With counsel for the complainant conceding, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~41
versus
SUNIL KUMAR SANGWAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prag chawla, Ms. Jaspreet kaur and Ms. Muskan Aggarwal, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
%
O R D E R 11.09.2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:48:29
was filed.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 rk
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 08:48:29
1 issue framed by the court
Should the complainant's Section 311 application to place a recently found 2012 promissory note on record after the accused's evidence closed be allowed?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Balinder Yadav
Sunil Kumar Sangwan
Neena Bansal Krishna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
