✦ Punjab & Haryana High Court · 09 Jul 2012

7.2012 Harpit Singh v. State of Punjab

M M S BEDI

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Present : Mr. Vijay K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dilsher S.Mann, AAG Punjab. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J. (Oral) The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning the Investigating Officer has been filed. It appears that cross examination has been conducted by the accused himself running into 12 pages. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ground for re- summoning the Investigating Officer has been mentioned in the application i.e. the petitioner wants to confront the witness with his signatures on certain documents; to confront him with the MLCs; to confront him from various procedural irregularities committed during arrest of the petitioner as well as the seizure of the contraband. I have carefully considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that merely because the petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-4246 of 2012 -2- who is a layman conducting his case himself is not sufficient enough to permit his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is the power that can be exercised by the Court only in special circumstances where the evidence of the person sought to be examined or re-examined is essential for the just decision of the case. The vague averments in the application to re-summon the Investigating Officer are not sufficient enough to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion that any injustice would be done to the petitioner by not permitting the re-summoning of the Investigating Officer. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner still has to lead his defence evidence. It will be open to the petitioner to prove the facts sought to be established by him by cross-examining the Investigating Officer by producing independent witness himself. It will be open to the petitioner to point out the defects in investigation during final arguments or in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for consideration of the Court.

9.7.2012 Meenu ( M.M.S.Bedi ) Judge

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 311, 313.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 09 Jul 2012. The bench was M M S BEDI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Punjab & Haryana High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments