Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOLA SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhola singh & Ors v. State of Punjab - CRM-65039-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8442 (12 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 65039-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION : 23.10.2006

Bhola singh and others

.... PETITIONERS

Versus

State of Punjab

..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. K.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

* * *

The petitioners, who are the accused in case FIR No. 92 dated 27.10.2003 registered at Police Station Jaurkian, under Sections 307/34 IPC, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 28.9.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for re-calling two prosecution witnesses, namely Roop Singh and Gurpiar Singh, for further cross-examination, has been dismissed by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Yakub Ismailbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 731 and a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Manghi alias Narmada v. State of M.P., 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 739, while observing as under :-

"... It was alleged that the aforesaid witnesses had deposed their separate affidavits on 6.11.2004 before the Notary and those affidavits were attached with the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a prayer to recall those witnesses for further examination. The Hon'ble High Court rejected the prayer of the defence that all these witnesses were examined and after cross-examination they were discharged and thereafter for one reason or another they have sworn the affidavit just contrary to the deposition made before the trial court, such witnesses cannot be recalled for re-examination and cross-examination on the basis of the affidavits.

After hearing counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

Dismissed.

October 23, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj 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.