GURDEV SINGH BHALLA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

GURDEV SINGH BHALLA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

The High Court did not err in dismissing the revision because the informant's statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and consistent trial testimony of other witnesses furnished prima facie evidence that made a triable case against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; therefore the summoning order was justified and interference was not warranted.

Parties
Appellant: Gurdev Singh Bhalla; Respondent: State of Punjab & Ors
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024 / Appeal From the High Court Order Dated 23.03.2023 Dismissing Criminal Revision; Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal (05.01.2024)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summoning of the Officials, Misappropriation, Investigation, Trial, Evidence, Witness, Sanction, Torture in Custody, Conduct of Police Officials, Recording of Statements, Police Remand, Prima Facie Evidence
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Prevention of Corruption Summoning of the Officials Misappropriation Investigation Trial Evidence +7 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurdev Singh Bhalla

Appellant

State of Punjab & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2024 / Appeal From the High Court Order Dated 23.03.2023 Dismissing Criminal Revision; Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal (05.01.2024)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision against the Trial Court order summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required before summoning public servants
  3. 3 Whether the statements of the informant and other witnesses provided prima facie basis to proceed against the police officials

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court did not err in dismissing the revision because the informant's statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and consistent trial testimony of other witnesses furnished prima facie evidence that made a triable case against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.; therefore the summoning order was justified and interference was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Impugned order dated 05.03.2018 summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the High Court order dated 23.03.2023 dismissing the revision are not interfered with