Judgment:
CRR No.2375 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRR No.2375 of 2014 Date of Decision: 06.08.2014 Ajay @ Raju ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
***** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
(ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit filed by the complainant (now deceased) was not in the knowledge of the petitioner as it was not a part of challan.
He further submits that the said affidavit was given to the police during investigation and without making entry into the police diary, the original affidavit was produced before the trial Court.
An application was moved by the petitioner for comparison of signatures and to have a photograph of the specimen signatures.
On perusal of application as well as impugned order, it appears that neither any provision has been mentioned in the application nor any specific prayer has been made.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he wants to summon an expert for comparison of signatures.
It appears that not only the provision has not been mentioned but the specific GURPREET KAUR201408.14 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh CRR No.2375 of 2014 2 prayer has also not been made.
Although, the petitioner is having right under Section 311 Cr.P.C but that is not the case in the application.
No reason is there to interfere in the order dated 25.07.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul as the application is totally vague and is without mentioning any provision as well as specific prayer.
No doubt, the application can't be dismissed on the ground of non-mentioning of proper section but prayer should be specific.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application with a specific prayer before the trial Court and the trial Court is also directed to consider the same, in case, such an application is moved and decide the same in accordance with law.
However, the observations made here-in-above shall not come on the way while deciding the application moved by the petitioner before the trial Court.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 06.08.2014 JUDGE gurpreet GURPREET KAUR201408.14 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIgh Court Chandigarh