Dismissed¶12

State of Hp v. Nissar Ahmed

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Aug 2024CR.R/299/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Closure of prosecution evidence upheld; Cr. Revision by State under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against Special Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur order dated 14.02.2024 in Session Trial No.02/2015; fourteen prior opportunities to conclude evidence; accused's Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement recorded; no further opportunity to lead evidence; revision petition dismissed; adjournment/pretext-based delay; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Sandeep Sharma, J.; Nissar Ahmed respondent.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order closing prosecution evidence and concluded that no interference was called for. ¶8

State of Hp Vs Nissar Ahmed — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2024:HHC:6656

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. Revision No.299 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.08.2024

¶4

_________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh	_________________ Versus	________________________ ……...Petitioner
Nissar Ahmed		…....Respondent
Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: None.

¶6

_________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Session Trial No.02/2015, whereby evidence of the prosecution came to be closed, petitioner/State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and grant one opportunity to lead evidence.

¶8

Having heard learned Additional Advocate General representing the petitioner/State and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for.

¶9

2024:HHC:6656

¶10

¶11

Careful perusal of order impugned in the instant proceeding reveals that as many as 14 opportunities came to be granted to the petitioner/State to conclude its evidence, however, needful was not done within the stipulated time, rather, on one pretext or the other, matter was got adjourned. Vide impugned order dated 14.02.2024, learned Court below after having ordered closure of prosecution evidence, fixed the matter for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for 20.03.2024. Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to dispute that statement of accused stands recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶12

In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and as such, no interference is called for. Present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

¶13

August 08, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge

State of Hp v. Nissar Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp v. Nissar Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp Vs Prem Singh

M/s Speedup India Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dinesh Chopra

Ajay Pal Vs State of Hp

M/S Kbs Enterprises and another Vs Spar Weldtech Pvt. Ltd.

Parmanand Vs State of Hp

Tarjan and Another Vs State of Hp and Another