AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 235 wordsAnoop Chitkara, J
CRM-5240-2023
Allowed, as prayed for. Documents at Annexures P-1 to P-3, are taken on record.
CRR-336-2023 (O&M)
Although the petitioner seeks re-examination and supply of statement of Rajwant Kaur recorded way back on 25.11.1996, but the petitioner's counsel submits that inadvertently the application which was filed before the trial Court i.e. at Annexure P-1, was not properly drafted and no reason have been mentioned that what prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner due to non-supplying of such documents. He further submits that given such application, the Sessions Court dismissed the same. He further submits that although there is a delay of more than 27 years in filing this application however in case he has some serious prejudice in non-supplying the copy to him, would not come in the way, given the nature of serious allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner.
Given this kind of prayer, there is no need to CBI to file its response. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of to the extent that the petitioner be permitted to file a fresh application giving reasons and the prejudices for non-supplying of the copy of the statement dated 25.11.1996 of Rajwant Kaur and in case, such application is filed within two weeks from today, the trial Court shall decide it without being influenced by the impugned order dated 11.01.2023.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.