Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kashish Gulyani vs . State Of H.P. on 27 January, 2023
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
Kashish Gulyani Vs. State of H.P. Cr. MP(M) No. 211 of 2023 .
27.1.2023 Present: Mr. Abhishek Barowalia, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
H.C. Vikas Thakur, No. 5, I.O., Police r Station, Sadar Kullu, H.P. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, list on 3.2.2023 before the learned Vacation Judge.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 27, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Daman Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Cr. MP(M) No. 203 of 2023 .
27.1.2023 Present: Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, list after vacation, before the appropriate Bench.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 27, 2023
(Kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
Vivek Verma Vs. State of HP
Cr. MP(M) No. 156 of 2023
.
27.1.2023 Present: Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate, for
the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
ASI Dildar Singh, I.O., P.S. Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P. is present alongwith the police records.
Status report filed.
In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, list, after vacation, before the appropriate Bench.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 27, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Shubham Sharma Vs. State of HP Cr. MP(M) No. 155 of 2023 .
27.1.2023 Present: Mr. Suram Singh Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondentState.
ASI Dildar Singh, I.O., P.S. Sadar, District Hamirpur, H.P. is present alongwith the police records.
Status report filed.
In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, list after vacation before the appropriate Bench.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 27, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Harish Chander Negi Vs Union of India & ors CWP No. 385 of 2023 .
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. Bala Nand Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, r for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6State.
Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate vice Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.
CWP No. 385 of 2023Notice. Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, CGC, Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, respondents No. 3, 4 & 6 and respondent No. 5, respectively. They pray for and are granted six weeks' time to file reply. List on 29.3.2023.
CMP No. 910 of 2023Notice/reply in the aforesaid terms. In the meanwhile, operation of Annexure P2, dated 13.8.2019, is ordered to be stayed.
CMP No. 909 of 2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CISThe application is allowed with a direction to the petitioner to file translated copies .
of Annexure P2 before the next date of hearing.
The application stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 24, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Roshan Lal Vs Union of India & ors CWP No. 386 of 2023 24.1.2023 Present: Mr. Bala Nand Mehta, Advocate, for .
the petitioner.
Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No. 3, 4 and 6State.
Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate vice Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate, for r respondent No. 5.
CWP No. 386 of 2023Notice. Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, CGC, Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. and Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, respondents No. 3, 4 & 6 and respondent No. 5, respectively. They pray for and are granted six weeks' time to file reply. List on 29.3.2023.
CMP No. 911 of 2023Notice/reply in the aforesaid terms. In the meanwhile, operation of Annexure P3, dated 12.7.2022, is ordered to be stayed.
CMP No. 912 of 2023The application is allowed with a direction to the petitioner to file translated copies ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS .
of Annexures P2 and P3, before the next date of hearing. The application stands disposed of.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 24, 2023
(Kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
Chhotu Ram Vs. State of H.P.
Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 2023
.
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for the
appellant.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, for the respondent.
Cr. M.P. No. 310 of 2023r Learned Additional Advocate General prays for and is granted a day's time to file reply.
List on 27.1.2023.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 24, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Ashwani Kumar Vs. Jogindra Central Co-op Cr. Revision No. 624 of 2022 .
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.
Cr. M.P. No. 328 of 2023r Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to withdraw the present application. Consequently, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 24, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Ashwani Kumar Vs. Jogindra Central Co-op Cr. Revision No. 624 of 2022 .
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent.
Cr. M.P. No. 328 of 2023r Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to withdraw the present application. Consequently, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 24, 2023
(Kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
Rawel Singh Vs. State of H.P.
Cr. MP(M) No. 179 of 2023
.
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R.S. Verma, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents.
ASI Raghujit Singh, I.O., P.S. Rakkar, District Kangra is present along with the Police record.
Supplementary status report filed.
List for consideration on 27.1.2023. The I.O. is directed to be present on the said date alongwith fresh supplementary status report. Interim order to continue.
(Virender Singh) Vacation Judge January 24, 2023 (Kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Abhinay Sood Vs. State of H.P. Cr. MP(M) No. 177 of 2023 .
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner/ applicant.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents.
S.I. Kuldeep Chand, I.O. Police Station, Gagret, District Una is present along with the Police record.
Status report filed.
Perusal of the bail application shows that the applicant has earlier moved Cr.MP(M) No. 2203 of 2022 before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 17.10.2022. As such, in the interest of justice, the matter is liable to be heard by the same Bench, which is otherwise available.
While holding so, reliance can be placed on the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.112 of 2023. Relevant paras No.7 and 8 of the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2023 in Cr.MP(M) No.112 of 2023 are reproduced as under: "7. Since two earlier bail applications were already filed by the applicant and were withdrawn, as ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS stated above, as such, the present matter is liable to be placed before the same Bench.
8. While holding so, the view of this Court is fortified .
by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Gati Limited versus T. Nagarajan Piramiajee & Anr., reported in 2019 (2) Criminal Court Cases 797 (SC). The relevant para5 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"5. Another aspect of the matter deserves to be noted. The first application for anticipatory bail was rejected by a certain learned Judge, but the second application for anticipatory bail was heard by another learned Judge, though the Judge who had heard the first application was available. This Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. r Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684, in a similar matter concerning filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail, made the following observations:
"5....The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the creditability of the court and the confidence of the other side being pot in issue and there would be wastage of courts' time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders...."
In State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, this Court placing reliance upon Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) observed:
"7. .....In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent .
an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the Court's time as a Judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will r also result in consistency..."
At the risk of repetition, we would like to quote similar observations made by this Court on subsequent occasions. In the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 62, this Court observed:
"3....Otherwise a party aggrieved by an order passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts.
Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in the judiciary..."
To the same effect, this Court observed in M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V.Mohan Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 491:
"3. In view of the principle laid down by this Court, since the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available..."
In Jagmohan Bahl and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2015(1) Apex Court Judgments 312 (S.C.): 2015(1) Criminal Court ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Cases 410 (S.C.): (2014) 16 SCC 501 too, this Court has observed along the same lines:
"15....when the Sixth Additional Sessions .
Judge had declined to grant the bail application, the next Fourth Additional Sessions Judge should have been well advised to place the matter before the same Judge. However, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring it to the notice of the Judge concerned that such an application was rejected earlier by a different Judge and he was available. In the entire adjudicatory process, the whole system has to be involved. r The matter would be different if a Judge has demitted the office or has been transferred.
Similarly, in the trial court, the matter would stand on a different footing, if the Presiding Officer has been superannuated or transferred. The fundamental concept is, if the Judge is available, the matter should be heard by him. That will sustain the faith of the people in the system and nobody would pave the path of forum shopping, which is decryable in law."
Ordered accordingly.
List before the appropriate Bench after vacation.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 24, 2023
(Kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
Ajay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.
Cr. MP(M) No. 184 of 2023
.
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. Sahil Malhotra, Advocate, for the
petitioner/ applicant.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, for the respondents.
ASI Suman Kumar, Police Station Sadar Mandi is present alongwith r Police record.
Status report filed.
2. A perusal of the application shows that the applicant has earlier tried his luck by filing Cr. MP(M) No. 2619 of 2022 before a Co ordinate Bench of this Court, however the same has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 10.1.2023. As such, in the interest of justice, the matter is liable to be heard by the same Bench, which is otherwise available.
3. While holding so, a reliance can be placed on the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by this Court in Cr.MP(M) No.112 of 2023. Relevant paras No.7 and 8 of the aforesaid order dated 19.01.2023 in Cr.MP(M) No.112 of 2023 are reproduced as under: "7. Since two earlier bail applications were already filed by the applicant and were withdrawn, as ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS stated above, as such, the present matter is liable to be placed before the same Bench.
8. While holding so, the view of this Court is fortified .
by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Gati Limited versus T. Nagarajan Piramiajee & Anr., reported in 2019 (2)Criminal Court Cases 797 (SC). The relevant para5 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"5. Another aspect of the matter deserves to be noted. The first application for anticipatory bail was rejected by a certain learned Judge, but the second application for anticipatory bail was heard by another learned Judge, though the Judge who had heard the first application was available. This Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. r Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684, in a similar matter concerning filing of successive applications for anticipatory bail, made the following observations:
"5....The convention that subsequent bail application should be placed before the same Judge who may have passed earlier orders has its roots in principle. It prevents abuse of process of court inasmuch as an impression is not created that a litigant is shunning or selecting a court depending on whether the court is to his liking or not, and is encouraged to file successive applications without any new factor having cropped up. If successive bail applications on the same subject are permitted to be disposed of by different Judges there would be conflicting orders and a litigant would be pestering every Judge till he gets an order to his liking resulting in the creditability of the court and the confidence of the other side being pot in issue and there would be wastage of courts' time. Judicial discipline requires that such matters must be placed before the same Judge, if he is available for orders...."
In State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, this Court placing reliance upon Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) observed:
"7. .....In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that the matter be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of court inasmuch as it will prevent .
an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the Court's time as a Judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency..."
At the risk of repetition, we would like to quote similar observations made by this Court on subsequent occasions. In the case of Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 62, this Court observed:
"3....Otherwise a party aggrieved by an order passed by one bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts.
Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final, and the faith of the people in the judiciary..."
To the same effect, this Court observed in M. Jagan Mohan Rao v. P.V.Mohan Rao, (2010) 15 SCC 491:
"3. In view of the principle laid down by this Court, since the learned Judge who had refused bail in the first instance was available, the matter should have been placed before him. This Court has indicated that such cases of successive bail applications should be placed before the same Judge who had refused bail in the first instance, unless that Judge is not available..."
In Jagmohan Bahl and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, 2015(1) Apex Court Judgments 312 (S.C.): 2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 410 (S.C.): (2014) 16 SCC 501 too, this Court has observed along the same lines:
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS"15....when the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge had declined to grant the bail application, the next Fourth Additional .
Sessions Judge should have been well advised to place the matter before the same Judge. However, it is the duty of the prosecution to bring it to the notice of the Judge concerned that such an application was rejected earlier by a different Judge and he was available. In the entire adjudicatory process, the whole system has to be involved.
The matter would be different if a Judge has demitted the office or has been transferred. Similarly, in the trial court, the matter would stand on a different footing, if the Presiding r Officer has been superannuated or transferred. The fundamental concept is, if the Judge is available, the matter should be heard by him. That will sustain the faith of the people in the system and nobody would pave the path of forum shopping, which is decryable in law."
4. Ordered accordingly.
5. List before the appropriate Bench after vacation.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 24, 2023
(Kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
Parkash Chand Vs. Ram Lal
Cr. MP(M) No. 180 of 2023
.
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R.S. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate, for the respondent.
In view of the no objection on behalf of the respondent, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 2 ½ months in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
Cr. Revision No. _________ Be registered.
There are certain arguable points involved in the present Cr. Revision Petition, as such the same is admitted for hearing.
Call for the records.
Cr. M.P. No. ________________ Be registered.
By virtue of the present application, under Section 397 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant Parkash Chand has sought suspension of sentence, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Court No. 1, Una in Criminal Case No. 79I 2017/61II2017, vide judgment/order dated .
18.1.2022 and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Una, District Una vide judgment dated 29.7.2022, in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2022.
By virtue of the said order, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicant Parkash Chand to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,40,000/ as compensation, to the complainant.
Since the revision against the said order has been admitted for hearing, which is likely to take some time for its disposal, as such, the application is considered and allowed. The order of sentence, under challenge, in the revision is suspended, during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions:
(i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/, alongwith one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS learned trial Court, within a period of six weeks .
from today, with an undertaking that in the event of dismissal of the revision, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence."
At this stage, it has been jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised between the parties. As per the compromise, the applicant will deposit the amount of compensation with the learned trial Court in the following terms:
Rs. 2,00,000/ on or before 15.3.2023 Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 30.4.2023;
Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 15.6.2023; Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 30.7.2023 Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 15.9.2023; Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 30.10.2023 and ;
Rs. 1,00,000/ on or before 30.11.2023.
In view of above, no order with regard to deposit of compensation has been passed in this case.
The application is, thus, disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court within a period of six weeks.::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
.
Petitioner/applicant may produce a downloaded copy of the order passed by the Court before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court shall not insist for the certified copy of order, rather passing of order can be verified from the webpage of this Court.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 24, 2023
(Kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS
Raj Kumar Vs. Vijay Kanwar
Cr. MP(M) No. 158 of 2023
.
24.1.2023 Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate, for the
petitioner/applicant.
Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocates General, r for respondent No. 2.Cr. MP(M) No. 158 of 2023
In view of no objection by learned counsel for respondent No. 1, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay of 19 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of.
Cr. Revision No. _________ Be registered.
There are certain arguable points involved in the present Cr. Revision Petition, as such the same is admitted for hearing.
Cr. M.P. No. ________________ Be registered.
By virtue of the present application, under Section 397 (1) of the Code of Criminal ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Procedure, the applicant Raj Kumar has sought suspension of sentence, passed by the learned .
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. in Case No. 176/2018, vide judgment/order dated 10.11.2021 and affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, vide judgment dated 1.10.2022, in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2021.
By virtue of the said order, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the applicant Raj Kumar to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ as compensation, to the complainant.
Since the revision against the said order has been admitted for hearing, which is likely to take some time for its disposal, as such, the application is considered and allowed. The order of sentence, under challenge, in the revision is suspended, during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions:
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS(i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/, alongwith one surety .
of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of six weeks from today, with an undertaking that in the event of dismissal of the revision, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence;
(ii) That the applicant shall deposit 50% of the compensation amount with the learned trial r Court ,within a period of six weeks from today.
The application is, thus, disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court within a period of six weeks.
Petitioner/applicant may produce a downloaded copy of the order passed by the Court before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court shall not insist for the certified copy of order, rather passing of order can be verified from the webpage of this Court.
Cr. M.P. No. _____________ Be registered.
The application is allowed with the direction to the petitioner to file certified copy of the trial ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS Court judgment before the next date of hearing.
The application stands disposed of.
.
(Virender Singh)
Vacation Judge
January 24, 2023
(Kalpana)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2023 20:31:13 :::CIS