The high court disposed of the criminal revision application by referring parties to a reasoned order of the same date in a connected matter without providing any reasoning in the certified copy.
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
CRA No.S-656-SB of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 18, 2017
Jagdeep Singh
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Aulakh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
For detailed order, see order passed in CRA No.S-629-SB of
2016 titled as Karandeep Singh @ Harry vs. State of Punjab of even date.
April 18, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2017.05.01 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Karandeep Singh @ Harry vs. State of PunjabReferred¶13
CRA No.S-629-SB of 2016
Jagdeep Singh
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
