Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Only One Opportunity Was To Be Granted – High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Decision Denying Additional Adjournment for Expert Cross-Examination

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant an adjournment for the cross-examination of a forensic expert. The court emphasized strict adherence to the directives issued by the Supreme Court, underscoring the principle that only a single opportunity for expert testimony was to be provided.

The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner, Suman Sharma, against an order from the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala. The impugned order, dated April 16, 2024, had denied an adjournment request for the cross-examination of Dr. Jassy Anand, a forensic expert engaged to compare disputed signatures and thumb impressions on crucial legal documents.

Initially, the trial court had dismissed an application to engage Dr. Anand for expert testimony, which was later overturned by the High Court in 2018. Despite the High Court’s decision allowing the forensic expert’s examination, a series of legal challenges and the expert’s unavailability led to delays. The Supreme Court intervened, setting a firm deadline for completing the proceedings by April 30, 2024, and specifically limiting the opportunity for expert examination to one occasion.

Justice Alka Sarin meticulously analyzed the sequence of events and legal arguments presented. The judge noted, “The Supreme Court’s order was clear and unambiguous, granting only one opportunity for the expert’s examination, which the trial court rightly adhered to.” Justice Sarin dismissed the petitioner’s contention that an additional opportunity should be afforded, highlighting the lack of substantive justification for the expert’s non-availability on the scheduled date. The court pointed out that the petitioner had ample time to ensure the expert’s presence and found no reason to override the trial court’s decision, which was in strict compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive.

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, reaffirming the trial court’s order. Justice Sarin stated, “In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

SUMAN SHARMA VERSUS MOHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED THR LRS) & ANR

Similar News