Disposed

Mr Miran Mohiddin Peerzada v. the Police Inspector

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2019WP/103782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of the Forensic Science Laboratory to produce a handwriting expert report. The Supreme Court directed the laboratory to submit the report within one week as per its stated assurance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to submit the forensic report and documents by the next date of hearing in the connected civil suit.

Mr Miran Mohiddin Peerzada Vs the Police… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.103782/2018 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR MIRAN MOHIDDIN PEERZADA @ MIRAN MOHAMMED PEERZADA AGED ABOUT: 66 YEARS, S/O MR.MOHAMMED SAHEB PEERZADA, R/AT: ROOM #23, 2^ND FLOOR, REGINA HOUSE 150, MATAR PAKADY ROAD, MAZGAON, MUMBAI-400010.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.V.GUNJAL, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE POLICE INSPECTOR TOWN POLICE STATION, BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶13

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, BENGLAURU.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.A.R.RODRIGUES, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT 1 TO PRODUCE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AS LISTED IN ANNEXURE-"B" AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.

¶21

The above writ petition is preferred praying for a mandamus to be issued to the 2^nd respondent, the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru to produce the report of the hand writing expert and the documents. As it was specifically contended by the petitioner, who is the plaintiff that the same are forged and concocted documents and that the same were seized by the 1^st respondent in Crime No.269/2014, registered with the 1^st respondent Police Station and that the Trial Court has closed the evidence without awaiting the report or the documents from the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the delay is not justified and the bona fides are questionable.

¶22

Learned AGA was put on notice and today, learned AGA places on record a letter said to have been addressed by the Director of State Forensic Science

¶23

¶24

Laboratory, Bengaluru to the Police Sub-Inspector, Bhatkal Town Police Station, Bhatkal, the 1^st respondent herein, stating that the documents concerned and seized in Crime No.264/2014 have been taken up for examination and the reports would be issued in one week’s time and that the same may be intimated to this Court.

¶25

The said letter is placed on record.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to abide by the statement made before this Court and consequently ensure the availability of the forensic report and the documents before the Trial Court in O.S. No.22/2014 (subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.8/2017), by the next date of hearing.

¶27

Petition stands disposed off accordingly. No costs.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

Rsh

Mr Miran Mohiddin Peerzada v. the Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Miran Mohiddin Peerzada v. the Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Munni Devi Vs Sri Uttamchand Jain

Jayashree D/O Basavaraj Kotur Vs State of Karnataka

Jayavant S/O Maruti Chougule Vs the City Corporation of Belagavi

Renuka S/O Hanumanthappa Katagi Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Chitrangi G. Naik Vs the State of Karantaka

Gangadhar S/O Bhimmappa Joguluda Vs the State of Karnataka