Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010 Vs. Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010

Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010 vs Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 16, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1121223

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1121223
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Jan 16, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010

Respondent

Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010

Excerpt

.....***** coram: hon’ble mr.justice t.p.s.mann present:- ms.amarjit k. khurana, addl. a.g., punjab, for the applicant. mr.sanjeev pandit, advocate, for the respondent. ***** t.p.s.mann, j (oral) the state has filed the present application under section 378(3) cr.p.c.seeking leave of the court to appeal against the judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the additional chief judicial magistrate, amritsar whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under sections 304-a, 337 and 427 ipc. the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent for the reason that the prosecution was not able to fix the identity of the accused as the one who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, this court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment acquitting vandana 2014.01.18 11:36 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document crm-misc. no.a-506-ma of 2010 2 the accused-respondent of the charges against him. from the testimonies of pw-1 tejinder singh, pw-2 jagdeep singh and pw-3 jagjit kaur who were examined as eye-witnesses and had also received injuries in the accident, it is made out that none of them knew the accused previously. from one sandeep kumar, they came to know that it was the accused-respondent who was driving the offending vehicle. said sandeep kumar was not cited by the prosecution as its witness nor he was examined by the police at any stage. according to pw-3 jagjit kaur, the name of the accused was disclosed to her by the police 2/4 days after the accident. despite the same, no material was brought on record by the prosecution on the basis of which it could be said that it was the accused-respondent who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident in which four persons died and three received injuries. in view of the above, no case is made out for granting.....

Full Judgment

CRM-Misc.

No.A-506-MA of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM-Misc.

No.A- 506-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.01.2014 State of Punjab ...Applicant Versus Vijay Kumar ...Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present:- Ms.Amarjit K.

Khurana, Addl.

A.G., Punjab, for the applicant.

Mr.Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for the respondent.

***** T.P.S.MANN, J (ORAL) The State has filed the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.seeking leave of the Court to appeal against the judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar whereby the accused-respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 304-A, 337 and 427 IPC.

The trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent for the reason that the prosecution was not able to fix the identity of the accused as the one who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment acquitting Vandana 2014.01.18 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-Misc.

No.A-506-MA of 2010 2 the accused-respondent of the charges against him.

From the testimonies of PW-1 Tejinder Singh, PW-2 Jagdeep Singh and PW-3 Jagjit Kaur who were examined as eye-witnesses and had also received injuries in the accident, it is made out that none of them knew the accused previously.

From one Sandeep Kumar, they came to know that it was the accused-respondent who was driving the offending vehicle.

Said Sandeep Kumar was not cited by the prosecution as its witness nor he was examined by the police at any stage.

According to PW-3 Jagjit Kaur, the name of the accused was disclosed to her by the police 2/4 days after the accident.

Despite the same, no material was brought on record by the prosecution on the basis of which it could be said that it was the accused-respondent who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident in which four persons died and three received injuries.

In view of the above, no case is made out for granting leave to the State to appeal against the acquittal of the accused- respondent.

The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(T.P.S.MANN) January 16, 2014 JUDGE vandana Vandana 2014.01.18 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010 vs Crm-misc. No.A- 506-ma of 2010 Same Subject Education