Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KULWINDER SINGH & ANR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kulwinder Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab - CRM-77469-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 11886 (4 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRL.M.No.78719 of 2006 and

CRL.M.NO.77469-M OF 2006

DATE OF ORDER: 15.12.2006

Kulwinder Singh and another

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent(s)

CORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. AGGARWAL .*.*.*.

Present: Mr. J.B.S. Gill, Advocate.

M.M. AGGARWAL,J

Crl.M.No.78719 of 2006

Application is allowed. Copy of order dated 18.9.2006 is taken on record.

Crl.M.No.77469-M of 2006

This is petition against order dated 29.11.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby request of the accused-petitioners for holding test identification parade to be identified by Sunil Kumar witness was declined.

Counsel for the petitioners argues that Sunil Kumar was not CRL.M.NO.77469-M OF 2006 #2#

cited as witness by the prosecution. Vide order dated 18.9.2006, an application of the prosecution was allowed and he was directed to be summoned as witness. That Sunil Kumar witness was introduced later on and request made by the accused-petitioners was that a test identification parade be held so that Sunil Kumar identifies the accused out of the Court before he comes to the Court as witness.

Counsel for the petitioners argues that the accused-petitioners had come in muffled faces before the Sessions Judge when this request was made. He argues that it was incumbent on the Sessions Judge to allow this request of the petitioners. He relies on a judgment of this Court reported in Joginder Singh alias Naginder Singh v. The Punjab State, 1974 CLR Vol.II 588 and High Court Instructions contained in Chapter II-C, Volume III.

FIR in this case had been registered on 30.5.2005. It appears that the charges had also been framed on 9.11.2005. Accused-petitioners are facing trial. Some witnesses had already been examined.

Under these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by issuing a direction to hold any test identification parade. I do not find any good ground to interfere.

Dismissed.

December 15, 2006 ( M.M. AGGARWAL )

manoj 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.