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

2005 Supreme(P&H) 1050

M.M.KUMAR
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Ram Parshad – Respondent


Judgment

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, the Code) challenges order dated 17-8-2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing an application of the State filed under Section 311 of the Code for re-examination of P.W. 3 Anil Sharma, City Magistrate, who was examined on 27-2-2004 in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2003 in respect of Case FIR No. 59 dated 16-4-2003 registered under Section 20 NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Sadar, Sonepat.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused-respondent was produced before Shri Anil Sharma, City Magistrate P.W. 3, when he had opted to be searched by a Gazetted Officer in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The City Magistrate Shri Anil Sharma appeared before the trial Court on 27-2-2004. In order to appreciate the controversy regarding the time of producing the accused before Sh. Anil Sharma it would be necessary to refer to his statement in extenso and the same reads as under :-

-

On 16-4-2003 I was posted City Magistrate, Sonipat. On that day SI Mehar Singh has produced the accused present in the Court today. Accused was having a

























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