Allowed

Gurmit Ram v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Nov 2010CRM-M/19646/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside the order closing prosecution evidence. Relying on the State's assurance to produce specific witnesses, the Court granted one more opportunity, setting aside the previous closure order while limiting further chances.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order closing evidence is set aside; prosecution directed to produce PWs ASI Sukhjinder Singh and SI Surinder Mohan on 8.12.2010.

Gurmit Ram Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 19646 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 19646 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 23, 2010

Gurmit Ram

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

........Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present : Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. J.S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶15

SABINA, J.

¶16

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-4) vide which the evidence of the prosecution has been closed by order.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although vide order dated 21.10.2009 P.Ws. ASI Sukhjinder Singh and ASI Shiv Kumar were ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants, but thereafter no effort was made by the trial Court to effect service on PWs ASI Sukhjinder Singh and SI Surinder Mohan.

¶18

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by ASI Jasbir Singh, has submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the prosecution to

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M- 19646 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

examine P.Ws. ASI Sukhjinder Singh and SI Surinder Mohan. The witnesses are police officials and will be produced before the trial court for recording of their statements on the date fixed before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the prosecution to conclude its evidence but despite the said fact it had failed to do so. Respondent No.2 had been put to harassment on account of pendency of the case.

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

¶24

A perusal of the interim order dated 21.10.2009 (as reproduced on page 18 of the petition) reveals that ASI Sukhjinder Singh was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants as he was absent despite service. There is no mention on record as to whether service was effected on the said witnesses through the bailable warrants or not. So far as the next interim order dated 11.11.2009 (as reproduced on page 18 of the petition) is concerned, no mention had been made to the effect as to whether service of P.W. ASI Sukhjinder Singh had been effected or not and in case he was absent despite the service of bailable warrants then no effort was made to use further coercive methods to effect service on the said witness. So far as P.W. SI Surinder Mohan is concerned, no effort appears to have been made qua his service. Since the learned State counsel has assured that P.Ws. ASI Sukhjinder Singh and SI Surinder Mohan will be examined on the date fixed by this Court, it would be just and expedient and in the interest of justice to grant one opportunity to the prosecution to examine the said witnesses. In case these two witnesses are allowed to be examined the trial

¶25

Crl. Misc. No. M- 19646 of 2010 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

will be disposed of on merits

¶28

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order whereby the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure P-4) is set aside. Prosecution is directed to produce P.W. ASI Sukhjinder Singh and SI Surinder Mohan before the trial Court for recording of their evidence on 8.12.2010, the date already fixed before the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed further with the trial in accordance with law. However, no further opportunity will be granted to the prosecution to examine the PWs ASI Sukhjinder Sigh and SI Surinder Mohan.

¶29

A copy of this order be given to learned State counsel under the signature of Court Secretary.

¶30

(SABINA) November 23, 2010 JUDGE Anand

Gurmit Ram v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmit Ram v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kaka Singh Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gurdial Singh

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.