Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.68 seconds)
Vippy Kapoor vs Anand Automobiles on 7 December, 2018 cites

Sunder Lal vs Urmila Thakur on 16 March, 2018

9. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has argued that the impugned orders have been passed in haste without giving proper opportunities to the accused/revisionist to cross-examine the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has read various orders passed by Ld. Trial Court to show that CE was closed on the third effective opportunity itself despite the fact that revisionist had only sought pass over and not adjournment on that day, i.e. 28.06.2017. It was argued that in the order dated 28.6.2017, Ld. Trial Court did not even record the request of accused/revisionist to pass over the matter and CE was closed and case was adjourned to 24.10.2017 for remaining PE. The revisionist filed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2017 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.07.2018 and matter was listed for statement of accused for 26.09.2018. She further argued that on 26.09.2018 the revisionist was present on the first call and the matter was passed over for 30 minutes and the revisionist who is a patient of diabetes suddenly became ill and left the court before the CR No. 781/2018 Vippy Kapoor Vs. Anand Automobiles DLCT01-014359-2018 Page 5 of 14 second call. Proxy counsel for the revisionist informed this fact to the court but NBWs were issued against the revisionist on the ground that why the revisionist had left the court without intimating and the case was adjourned to 14.12.2018. It was further submitted that revisionist filed application for cancellation of NBWs which was cancelled subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has also placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Prdesh in Sunder Lal Vs. Urmila Thakur in Crl.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 12 - S Sharma - Full Document
1