Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KHEM RAJ versus KHUSHAL KUMAR SHARMA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Khem Raj v. Khushal Kumar Sharma & Anr - CRR-635-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4058 (13 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.Rev.No.635 of 2005

Khem Raj Vs. Khushal Kumar Sharma and another Present : Mr. L.S. Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Prayer in this petition is, for setting aside the order dated 16.9.2002, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Punjab, discharging respondent no.1.

The present revision has been filed after a delay of 760 days, as also a delay of 21 days in refiling the revision. Despite the fact that no sufficient cause has been disclosed for condonation of delay, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, on merits.

A case R.C.No.24/2000-CHG dated 28.9.2000 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against respondent no.1. During investigation, the matter was referred to the competent authority for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused-respondent no.1. The competent authority, however, declined sanction for prosecution. As a result, the C.B.I. submitted a closure report.

Notice of the closure report was issued to the complainant, but despite service, he failed to put in appearance. The learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the C.B.I., accepted the closure report, vide order dated 16.9.2002.

The sole contention, raised by counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner was not served, prior to the acceptance of the closure report, thus rendering the impugned order null and void. A perusal of the impugned order, reveals that the trial Court recorded a specific finding that despite service, the petitioner did not put in appearance. No material has been placed before this Court, to demonstrate that the aforementioned finding is, in any manner, incorrect or contrary to the record. Even otherwise, there is a delay of 760 days in filing the revision. I find no reason, to interfere in the order passed by the Special Judge,C.B.I. Patiala.

Dismissed.

18.7.2006 ( RAJIVE BHALLA )

GS JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.