The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order declining an application for a fresh forensic sample during the defence evidence phase. Despite the petitioner's absence, the bench concluded the trial must have concluded by 2009 and denied the remedy.
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
Criminal Revision No. 2168 of 2004
Date of Decision: October 21, 2009
Prem Singh
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
… Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. B.B.S. Teji, AAG, Punjab,
S.D. Anand, J.
This petition, which calls into question the validity of order dated25.09.2004, was for the year 2004 itself. Vide the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge declined a plea filed by the petitioner – accused for the forwarding of a fresh sample (to be taken out of the case property) to the Central Laboratory. The learned Trial Judge noticed that the case had already entered into defence evidence and that application did not deserve allowance as it had been filed at the fag end of the trial.
2
Crl. Revision No. 2168 of 2004
It is apparent from the record that on February 14, 2005, a Coordinate Bench (Pritam Pal, J.) of this Court restrained the final pronouncement of the judgment. That order was vacated by another Co-ordinate Bench (Adrash Kumar Goel, J.) of this court on 22.09.2005. The vacation of that order came about as none entered appearance and it was pointed out to that Bench that the petitioner will have a remedy to challenge the impugned order at the time of final order itself.
Today again, none has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the interim order had been vacated on 22.09.2005 and we are presently in the year 2009, it can safely be presumed that the trial itself must have concluded.
There is no justification to adjourn this case for further consideration, particularly when none has opted to enter appearance on behalf of the petitioner today.
The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. The dismissal of the petition shall be communicated forthwith to the learned Trial Court.
October 21, 2009 vkd
( S.D. Anand ) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision petition regarding the refusal to forward a fresh sample for Central Laboratory testing should be allowed, particularly in light of the petitioner's absence and the appar
Prem Singh
State of Punjab
S.D. Anand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
