Virender Singh
Mukhtar Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.