Dismissed
Dilbag Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCRM-M/32018/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH…
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 32018-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.11.2009
Dilbagh Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is complainant in case FIR No. 30 dated 10.2.1997, under Sections 323, 342, 452, 148, 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana. The evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order dated 2.12.2006. On the same date an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence was filed, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.11.2009. Through the instant petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the said order.
It emerges out from the paper book that after framing of charges in the year 2000, the prosecution was granted ample opportunities to conclude its evidence. But despite availing number of opportunities, including the last opportunities on 16.3.2005, 28.10.2005, 28.1.2006, 8.3.2006, 8.4.2006, 8.7.2006 and 5.9.2006 the prosecution failed to exhaust the list of witnesses and constrained with the callous attitude of the prosecution, finding no other alternative the evidence of the prosecution was closed vide order dated 2.12.2006. Moreover, the witnesses sought to be examined by way of additional evidence were the same which were remained to be examined when the evidence of the prosecution was closed by Court order. It was not that their examination was not within the knowledge of the prosecution. Thus, no fault could be found with the
2
approach of the learned trial Court in dismissing the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 13, 2009 Jiten
Dilbagh Singh
State of Punjab
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court