The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a revision petition dismissing an order that closed the accused's evidence. The court set aside the impugned order, directing the trial court to serve the accused's listed witnesses and proceed further.
Set aside the order closing the evidence; direct the Trial Court to serve the accused's witnesses and proceed further.
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.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:3313 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 95 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.06.2024
Hari Singh ... Petitioner Versus Khub Chand ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate. : For the respondent Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral)
The present petition is directed against the order dated 21.11.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Karsog, District Mandi H.P., vide which the evidence of the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) was closed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
effecting the service; hence, the order is bad and should be set aside.
3
money, it becomes the responsibility of the Court to ensure the service of the witnesses mentioned in the list and the Court is not justified in closing the evidence on the ground that the matter is pending for a long time. Hence, the order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to ensure the service of witnesses mentioned by the accused in his application and thereafter, to proceed further as per the law.
forthwith.
( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
11th June, 2024 (saurav pathania)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the closure of evidence order passed due to non-served witnesses was sustainable when the accused had taken necessary steps and deposited fees.
Whether the court is justified in holding the accused at fault for non-receipt of bailable warrants without verifying the reason.
Hari Singh
Khub Chand
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
