Anil Sehgal v. State Of Punjab And ORS


   



 

 




 !

"# $!%&'&"() **  
+ ,+

 

-!.'/'

,





,






 


+ ,+

 

-!.'/'

,





,






 

)

0 + * ,
 
 

11111
 



 
 




 
 
 





 


 
 
!
"
 #$
11111

  * *
% 




 


$ &


!


   
 



'
 


() 
 
 



$ 

*

+
, ,

-


/01/1/2


3 
&//

$'



4 .  
/
,
5  











 


4 
.  
/
,
5  



 





/2/11/1
 
1/1/
 

()
 /+

+1112


3 
&/
.  

 
*

5 !


1
1
+
2/
/1&
),
%
.


. 

 

! 




!

 
!


&
6

7
*#
( 


5  
 .
819
 


 


  .









 

 .
*)6,
 
(,
 


  
 
  

 .




 :

.
 
 .






.

 
 $'

 .

! 
 
 
 




- $


..
*   '



"6
. !
 
 
. !


.
! 

6


  


  
 


 

   
 ! 
'
! 
 .



 





 '
$.

.

'
  

.


  
 

%




 



 

 
$'
*)6,


 



.
 
.



 
 
$

.

6


 
 .


,  '
3 
! 






*)6,
 
(,
 ! 
'






 .

.

 


! 

!

 

19
 

"6
. !

/19


:
 

 




819

$'




$
 

 

$


8/12/00
 
81/1/00

  '
! 



 

$
. 
 
 
'
.  




. 

 


 
 
)

'

11




'


:

' 
%'


!

.






 
!

.


.

$'
. .











.

.
 
 .

 
,

- '




!
 

/10110
%
 






18//1/


0/

! 
*

,
:

.






'

.






! '
!


///1/
 

$
  
 


/01/1/2


5









 




! 
   .



 


.

' & 

 '




!







 .


$


$'



 


)
 
. 

 

 , !!2 -'*  3 /4!'5

1/8;<
, ;, </11=
5


*


$ 




 

!

.'
  
$'




 


 






 





.



 
)

  


,
! 
&
>8//



 
!  

3 



 '
, 
'

 '
.

- '




.

 
, 


'




!  

3 
 '


 


 .






!  



 &
3 
 '


 '
3 ?
 

, 




3


 &
3 
 '
 


 
 





$
  


#


@
%
 
.


:
$'

 




!

 .





! 
! 

 
$

'
/
! 



%
, 
  



! 
$ .
&
"3. The application is contested by accused Vikas Shrivastva by filing the reply on the ground that the accused has right of speedy trial under article 21 of Constitution of India. The matter in question relates the year 1993 and FDR regarding alleged incidents was registered in the 2007, whereas challan in the case was filed on the 10 of Nov 2009 and charge in the above said case was framed on 4th of June 2011 and since then the case of the prosecution is hanging for prosecution evidence and has not advanced from that stage and now this application and file to prolong the case has such application is totally false and frivolous. The complainant has no right or locus standi to file the present application much less under section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure as the said provision is enabling

6
provision enabling the court or any officer in charge MAR 2017 Police Station to consider the production of any document desired by it from any person and thus the same is not empowered the complaint will walk the power of the said provision to produce on record the alleged documents stated to be in his possession. Similarly a complainant has no right to invoke the provisions of the section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure which are otherwise also not attractive in the present case and the said provision cannot be used to prejudice the case of the accused and to fill the lacuna in the case and is liable to be dismissed. No description of the alleged share certificate so to be produced for record have been given. No copies of the same have been put on record otherwise also the alleged forge evidence has no relevancy to the charging threats faced by the accused. Similarly reply filed by the accused Ashwani Kumar. xxxxxx

6. The present application has not been moved by the public prosecutor and have been directly moved by the complainant through his private counsel. The complainant failed to show his locus standi to file the present application as per latest verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2016 (4) Punjab Law Reporter 725 it has been held that role of the informant for the private parties limited it during the prosecution of a case in a court. The counsel engaged by him is required to act under the directions of public prosecutor. As far as section 302 of Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, power is conferred on the Magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently when a complainant wants to take the benefit have provided under section 302 of code of criminal procedure, he is to file a written application making out a case. And in the present case no such application has been filed so the complainant failed to prove his locus standi to file the present application.

7. On the other aspect of application, regarding tendering of share certificates same are not annexed with the charge-sheet so it were not considered while framing of the charge. So no notice of these documents is given to the accused and if they are included at this stage, it will definitely cause prejudice to the accused which against the criminal law.

%

& 








 


.

.
$
!
 $

$ 
 
.




 
 




 



0/
, ,




 $ .


 


,

.




7




'






 $




 .






.


, ,
%


*

8//
, ,




!  


 


$'


- 


  


#





$ 
$'

A$
%
* 
,

)  


-.'8 .9 :'* ,  !

"#

$8;

.$!'85
1
*,,
B 
*,
0+,

! 



 



 
* 







.



!

.  
 
! 
! 
 .

$




 

 .'








.

.
 










,



$
 !




 







 










  .










 # 







. 



 .


  
 '
( 

 


 





$
 


 . 

 

.





. 
 


  


$'

C$
%
* 
,

)  


 '8 ,&(98 :'* 

,  !
1/8
, 5 ;*,<
=+
 

 



!




3
! 


.


!


! 




.
 






 
.
!




'

 # 





 
 
  .


 

%





,
 
$
:
$'


'



 

# 
%



$
3





.
 
 



 

 
$
3


! 
.









%



! 

 
*

$



 $
3



:











%

 


 




$
3






 !





$ 


$



!


,<=( >/3.

8 !.?!!

-'

5 ;1/0<
/
*,,
8+,
! 






 







 


' /008
 .
!



111//
 






!


 !

.






)


, &&+88&1/+



:

.


 

 






3 
&2
 
&+




*



$ 




 '
$
 

.

 

 



)
 !


  


 $ 
 
,



. '

 '

.

, &&+/12&1/+
%

 
 


 $'
  
! 
, &&+88&1/+

  


 $

 



'

$








 

 
**