RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-197
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on
September 29,2022
RAJ KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. KATHI KALU OGHAD [REFERRED TO]CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. R S PAI [REFERRED TO]
SONU @ AMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS VS. CDR RAVINDRA V DESAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU VS. M R HIREMATH [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS. KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. -
(1.)This criminal revision is filed against the order dtd. 19/4/2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala whereby the petitioner was directed to give his voice sample. The revision petition is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the revision petition.
(2.)The brief facts are that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 20 dtd. 5/12/2019, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018) and Sec. 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order. It is submitted that order is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced and the order was passed at the back of the petitioner.
(2.)The brief facts are that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 20 dtd. 5/12/2019, under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018) and Sec. 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, Patiala.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order. It is submitted that order is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, no certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced and the order was passed at the back of the petitioner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.