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

2010 Supreme(J&K) 636

Virender Singh
Mukhtar Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.N. Goja, B.R. Chandan.

1. All the four petitioners (to be referred as `accused’) are facing trial in case F.I.R. No. 250/2006 registered at Police Station Banihal under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short to be referred to as `NDPS Act’) for allegedly found to be in possession of 10 kg., (ten kilograms) of Charas. They are stated to be in custody since November, 2006.

2. Since the prosecution after availing many opportunities could not conclude its evidence, the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.11.2008 (Annexure-A) closed the evidence of prosecution and put the trial to next step i.e. recording the statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C., which was also done and after that accused were given an opportunity to lead evidence. When the case was amidst hearing arguments and the matter was being argued by the Public Prosecutor, an application under Section 540 Cr.P.C. was filed by the State for calling Investigating Officer and SDPO Banihal, which was opposed by the accused vehemently, but ultimately allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramban vide impugned order dated 23.02.2010. A fixed particular date for recording the statement of the aforesaid






















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