Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

 Court Dismisses Petition to Summon Additional Accused in Ruling, Upholds Admissible Evidence Principle 

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


  Chandigarh  : In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, has dismissed a petition seeking the summoning of an additional accused. The Court's decision is a pivotal assertion of the principle that evidence against an individual must be substantial, corroborated, and admissible before invoking legal action. 

The case involved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in which the petitioner sought to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused. The Court examined the evidence and underscored the importance of admissible evidence in proceeding against an additional accused. In his oral observations, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted, "While exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court must be convinced by substantial evidence, not mere suspicion." 

The court's ruling emphasized the significance of adhering to the admissible evidence standard. The judgment stated, "The Court's discretionary power to summon an additional accused should be exercised judiciously, ensuring that justice is upheld and innocent parties are not harmed." The ruling clarified that "hear say" evidence is inadmissible, and only evidence presented in Court, be it oral or documentary, should be considered for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. 

Justice Bedi referred to earlier judgments, notably the Michael Machado case (2000) and the Manjeet Singh case (2021), to elucidate the scope and limitations of the court's powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He highlighted that the court's powers should not be exercised solely based on doubts, but rather on the presence of substantial, corroborated evidence. 

The court's verdict affirms that the legal process must be anchored in a robust and just evaluation of evidence. With the dismissal of the petition, the High Court has underlined the necessity of a strong evidentiary foundation before summoning an additional accused.

 Date of decision:10.08.2023

Kuldeep Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Kuldeep_Singh_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Another_on_10_August_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News