Petitioner in custody since July 2008 disputed delay in prosecution evidence; court, noting state's statement, dismissed petition as not pressed but directed trial court to expedite.
Trial court directed to expedite the trial of the case.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-17637 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 17 .08.2009
Anil Kumar ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Punjab ....Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ***
Present:Mr.K.R.Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. ***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 15.7.2008 and thereafter charge was framed on 19.1.2009 but till date despite various opportunities granted to the prosecution for completing its evidence, no prosecution witness has been examined. This fact has been disputed by the counsel for the State who states that two witnesses have been examined on 14.7.2009. He further contends that the next date of hearing before the trial Court is 26.8.2009 when the prosecution will produce the witnesses. He further submits that an effort would be made to produce and examine the witnesses on the next date of hearing.
Counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition in the light of the statement of the counsel for the State. Dismissed as not pressed.
Since the petitioner is in custody since 15.7.2008, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.
August 17, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE
Anil Kumar
State of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
