MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2008-1-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
January 25,2008
MANGAT RAM
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JAGDEV SINGH TALWANDI [REFERRED TO]STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURINDERKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MOHD ASHRAF VS. ABDUL WAHID SIDDIQUE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-12-22] [REFERRED TO]IN RE: HIGH COURT ON HIS OWN MOTION ( IN THE MATTER OF PENDING JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS PASSED BY AD-HOC SR. CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., "A" COURT, QUEPEM) VS. IN RE: HIGH COURT ON HIS OWN MOTION ( IN THE MATTER OF PENDING JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS PASSED BY AD-HOC SR. CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., "A" COURT, QUEPEM) [LAWS(BOM)-2023-1-329] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIKH MOHAMMED TAUSEEF VS. GOGO CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY VS. RANAGHAT S.D.HOSPITAL [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI BALIRAM MUPADE AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA SRIVASTAVA VS. NEELAM MISHRA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-2-149] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ORS. VS. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2018-3-798] [REFERRED TO]
ALI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAJEET YADAV VS. SANTOSH SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)On November 30, 2007 when the matter was placed for admission-hearing, this Court passed the following order:
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice on the special leave petition as on the application for bail. Notice will state as to why the special leave petition should not be disposed of at this stage".
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on May 3rd, 2007, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 was placed on Daily Board of the High Court showing them to be "Motion petitions". It was, therefore, submitted that the case was not placed for regular final hearing. It was, however, taken up for final hearing. One Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the accused who was heard and the matter was disposed of. The order which was passed by the High Court reads as under: "Present : Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Heard.
Dismissed, reasons to follow".
(emphasis supplied)
(2.)On November 30, 2007 when the matter was placed for admission-hearing, this Court passed the following order:
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice on the special leave petition as on the application for bail. Notice will state as to why the special leave petition should not be disposed of at this stage".
(3.)The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on May 3rd, 2007, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 was placed on Daily Board of the High Court showing them to be "Motion petitions". It was, therefore, submitted that the case was not placed for regular final hearing. It was, however, taken up for final hearing. One Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the accused who was heard and the matter was disposed of. The order which was passed by the High Court reads as under: "Present : Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana.
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Heard.
Dismissed, reasons to follow".
(emphasis supplied)
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.