Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashok & Anr. Vs.state

Ashok & Anr. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 04, 2019
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1221135

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok & Anr.

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....the trial court on 7th february, 2019 for final arguments.... petitioners’ counsel submits that for the negligence of petitioners they can be put to terms, but the cross examination of pw-1, pw-2 & pw-3 is essential. learned additional public prosecutor supports the impugned order and seeks dismissal of this petition. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 25th august, 2018, i find that petitioners have not exercised due diligence in defending themselves before the trial court and the blame is sought to be put on the previous counsel, whose name is not disclosed. in any case, in the interest of justice, this court deems it appropriate that petitioners be put to terms as the cross examination of pw-1, pw-2 & pw-3 is necessary for the just decision of this case. accordingly, impugned order of 25th august, 2018 is set aside and petitioners’ application under section 311 of cr.p.c. is allowed, subject to costs of ₹30,000/- to be deposited with ‘prime minister relief fund’ within a week. upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs before the trial court, pw-1, pw-2 & pw-3 be summoned for cross examination by petitioners’ counsel before the trial court and for this purpose one effective opportunity be granted to the petitioners. crl. m.c. 619/2019 page 2 of 3 consequentially, this petition is accordingly disposed of. dasti. february04 2019 p’ma (sunil gaur) judge crl. m.c. 619/2019 page 3 of 3

Full Judgment

* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: February 04, 2019 CRL.M.C. 619/2019 ASHOK & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Dinesh Sah and Mr. Rajeev Rajan, Advocates STATE Versus ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Izhar Ahmad, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Madan Lal CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

(ORAL) Crl.M.A. 2548/2019 (Exemptions) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.A. 2549/2019 (delay) There is delay of 13 days in re-filing the accompanying petition. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 619/2019 and Crl.M.A. 2547/2019 (Stay)... Petitioner

’s application seeking recall of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 stands dismissed vide trial court’s order of 25th August, 2018. Counsel for petitioners submits that PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 are CRL. M.C. 619/2019 Page 1 of 3 material witnesses, who could not be cross examined as previous counsel of the accused persons/petitioners was negligent.... Petitioner

s’ counsel submits that the previous counsel was unwell and so petitioners could not be defended and the matter is now coming before the trial court on 7th February, 2019 for final arguments.... Petitioner

s’ counsel submits that for the negligence of petitioners they can be put to terms, but the cross examination of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 is essential. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports the impugned order and seeks dismissal of this petition. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 25th August, 2018, I find that petitioners have not exercised due diligence in defending themselves before the trial court and the blame is sought to be put on the previous counsel, whose name is not disclosed. In any case, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate that petitioners be put to terms as the cross examination of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 is necessary for the just decision of this case. Accordingly, impugned order of 25th August, 2018 is set aside and petitioners’ application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to costs of ₹30,000/- to be deposited with ‘Prime Minister Relief Fund’ within a week. Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs before the trial court, PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3 be summoned for cross examination by petitioners’ counsel before the trial court and for this purpose one effective opportunity be granted to the petitioners. CRL. M.C. 619/2019 Page 2 of 3 Consequentially, this petition is accordingly disposed of. Dasti. FEBRUARY04 2019 p’ma (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE CRL. M.C. 619/2019 Page 3 of 3

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial