Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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