Allowed

Malkeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Dec 2023CRR/2847/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition against the framing of charges in a No-Demand NDPS case, the High Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months and barred the petitioner from seeking unnecessary adjournments, invoking Section 362 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. if delay occurred.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; trial to be concluded within six months; petitioner directed not to seek adjournments.

Malkeet Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:158628

¶2

CRR-2847-2023 (O&M)

¶3

110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRR-2847-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.12.2023

¶5

Malkeet Singh ...Pe##oner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Sunny Saggar, Advocate for the pe##oner.

¶10

Ms. Swa# Batra, D.A.G., Punjab (through V.C.).

¶11

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CRM-52189-2023

¶14

Allowed as prayed for.

¶15

Main case

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta#on	Sec#ons
266	07.11.2021	City Tarn Taran	7 of PC Act, 1988 and 18, 29,
			59 of NDPS Act,1985

¶17

Aggrieved against the order of framing of charges passed by the trial Court, the pe##oner has come up before this Court by filing the present revision pe##on.

¶18

Counsel for the pe##oner submits that although it is a case of no demand, no acceptance, as such no recovery, but s#ll charges have been framed and just a=er one day of registra#on of FIR, he was dismissed from service, which shows malafide inten#on on the part of authority.

¶19

A=er arguing this case for some #me, counsel for the pe##oner submits that he would be contended and sa#sfied if the trial is expedited.

¶20

State counsel has no objec#on to the aforesaid course.

¶21

Given above, present pe##on is disposed of with a direc#on to the trial Court to make every effort to conclude the trial within 06 months from today. Pe##oner is directed not to seek any adjournment before the trial Court. In case, the pe##oner seeks an adjournment and the #me for which the ma@er is delayed because of the pe##oner,

¶22

Jyoti Sharma2023.12.13 16:20 that period shall be added in the s#pulated #me period of six months. If the pe##oner I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

¶24

2023:PHHC:158628

¶25

CRR-2847-2023 (O&M)

¶26

seeks repeated unnecessary adjournments, this order shall stand re-called automa#cally under Sec#on 362 read with Sec#on 482 Cr.P.C. without reference to this Court.

¶27

State as well as counsel for the pe##oner to convey order to the trial Court.

¶28

All pending applica#ons, if any also stands disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶30

12.12.2023 Jyo# Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶31

Jyoti Sharma 2023.12.13 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Sector 1, High Court, Chandigarh

¶32

Malkeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malkeet Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Pavittar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chaittnya Aggarwal Vs State of U.T. Chd. and Others

Sukha Singh @ Surjit Singh (Minor) Vs State of Punjab

Ravi Vs State of Haryana

Puneet Mittal and Another Vs State of Punjab