Skip to content


Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Crl. Misc. No. 39486-M of 2000

Judge

Reported in

[2000(86)FLR384]

Acts

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Appellant

Raghbir Singh

Respondent

State of Haryana

Appellant Advocate

Mr. H.S. Hooda, Senior Adv. and; Mr. Arvind Singh, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG and; Mr. Baljit Singh, DSP

Excerpt:


.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........petitioner. the investigating officer is present in court who has already stated that nothing is to be recovered or elicited from the petitioner, at this stage.in view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any further. he is in custody since 17.10.2000. in my view, the respondents have had sufficient time to recover or elicit anything from the petitioner. even without the statement having been made by the investigating officer, i am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail.in view of the above, petitioner is allowed bait to the satisfaction of the c.j.m., panipat.copy dasti under the signatures of the special secretary of this court.2. petition allowed.

Judgment:


S.S. Nijjar, J.

1. On a specific query put by this Court, Mr. Baljit Singh, D.S.P., Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, has stated that no further material is to be recovered or elicited from the petitioner at this stage. Mr. Hooda, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has made strong reliance on the report submitted by the Di-rector, Horticulture Department, in which it is categorically stated that if the packets of bio- fertiliser are available in Regional Bio-fertiliser, Hisar, even then these can be purchased from any private firm. Thereafter, the Director has given complete justification for making the purchase from the firm which is stated to have been favoured. Apart from this, although the allegations in the FIR are that there has been an embezzlement in the sum of Rs. 35 lacs, but on mathematical calculation, it appears that only a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- has been embezzled. However, it is not necessary to go into the merits of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Investigating Officer is present in Court who has already stated that nothing is to be recovered or elicited from the petitioner, at this stage.

In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any further. He is in custody since 17.10.2000. In my view, the respondents have had sufficient time to recover or elicit anything from the petitioner. Even without the statement having been made by the investigating Officer, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

In view of the above, petitioner is allowed bait to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Panipat.

Copy dasti under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court.

2. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //