Petitioner withdrew the petition but sought a direction for expeditious trial. The single judge allowed withdrawal and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn; trial court directed to conclude trial within two months.
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
CRM-M-18869 of 2017 DATE OF DECISION :- August 30, 2017
Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present :- Mr. Anterpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Aulakh, DAG, Punjab. ***
Report from District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana received, in terms of which the prosecution has closed its evidence and the case was fixed for 23.8.2017 for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge has reported that period of three months be given to dispose of the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he be allowed to withdraw the petition but a direction be issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously subject to the condition that the petitioner-accused would bring the defence evidence, if any, in the Court at the earliest and does not ask for un-necessary adjournments, then earnest efforts be made to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE August 30, 2017 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Parvinder Singh 2017.08.30 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Gurmeet Singh
State of Punjab
H.S. MADAAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
