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

2013 Supreme(Del) 2023

MUKTA GUPTA
Irfan Badshah – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Ad#31;vocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, ASC.

JUDGMENT :

Mukta Gupta, J.— (ORAL)

1. At the outset learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the present petition be treated as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is treated as petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Registry to re-number the petition.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is limited to the disallowance of two important questions as irrelevant during the cross-examination of PW22 ACP Mahavir Singh, Investigating Officer of case FIR No. 161/2008 registered at PS Amar Colony under Section 302/323/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is facing trial in a case of murder and is in judicial custody for a period of over four years. While the Petitioner was cross-examining PW22 he asked two questions to the Investigating officer as to whether it was correct that DD Nos. 9 and 10 were based on the documents Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW17/A respectively. Both these questions were disallowed by the learned Trial Court as irrelevant. According to the learned counsel both Ex. PW12/A and PW17/A have been ad














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