SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 1440

MANMOHAN SARIN
STATE – Appellant
Versus
VIJENDER SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mukta Gupta, RAJAT KATYAL, Sushil Bajaj


MANJU GOEL, J.

( 1 ) STATE's application for leave to appeal against acquittal dated 27/3/2001 in S. C. No. 258/1996; FIR 71/1988 for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was presented on 28/8/2001. The same was returned by the Registry which required a copy of the impugned order. After removing the objection, the application for leave to appeal was filed on 24. 9. 2001. The present crl. M. A. No. 1025/2002 for condoning the delay in presentation of the application for leave is presented on 7. 3. 2002. The application is opposed on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) TWO questions are involved in this application for condonation of delay. The first is whether sufficient ground for condonation of delay has been made out and, secondly, whether the application for condonation of delay, which itself is delayed for not having been filed along with the application for leave to appeal, can be entertained. Let us take the first question first. The facts explaining the delay are as under: the APP submitted his opinion on the impugned judgment on 27. 3. 2001 and thereafter the PP agreeing with the view of the APP forwarded the file to th






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top