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

2003 Supreme(P&H) 486

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR
Narinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

J.S.Khehar, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the crime allegedly committed by the petitioner Narinder Singh would not have taken place had the manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank. Kot Mangal Singh Branch, Amritsar conducted physical inspection of the truck bearing registration No.PUU 7337 while sanctioning the loan in favour of the petitioner Narinder Singh. The instant argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived. An administrative lapse committed by Chamkaur Singh, Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Kot Mangal Branch, Amritsar, who had appeared before the trial Court as PW7, by not effecting physical inspection of the truck before sanctioning the loan in favour of Narinder Singh cannot exculpate Narinder Singh of his own acts of omission and commission.

2. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the prosecution witnesses acknowledged that when Savings Bank Account No. 7738 was opened in the name of Jarnail Singh in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Golden Temple Branch, Amritsar on 30.1.1981 one of the employees of the bank, namely, Avtar Singh had identified and introduced Jarnai



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