HANISH KUMAR vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Advocate - A.G. PUNJAB — CRR/1049/2020
Case under No Acts Defined Section 1. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010583302020
Filing Number
CRR/33597/2020
Filing Date
31-07-2020
Registration No
CRR/1049/2020
Registration Date
31-07-2020
Judge
MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Coram
MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Bench Type
Single
Category
37.6 - PROCEEDINGS STAYED IN CRIMINAL REVISION ( 196 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL BRANCH
Decision Date
13th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HANISH KUMAR
Adv. MOHD. SALIM
Respondent(s)
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Advocate - A.G. PUNJAB
Orders
CASE SUMMARY: CRR 1049/2020 The High Court dismissed Hanish Kumar's petition challenging a lower court's order permitting the complainant to examine a handwriting expert under Section 246(6) Cr.P.C. in a forgery case. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge's decision, holding that the complainant could present supplementary witnesses (including experts not originally listed) if evidence advances justice, distinguishing between an earlier rejected application regarding a sale deed and the current application concerning the disputed affidavit at issue's core. The judgment emphasized that procedural technicalities should not exclude relevant evidence essential for truth-discovery in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: CRR 1049/2020 The High Court dismissed Hanish Kumar's petition challenging a lower court's order permitting the complainant to examine a handwriting expert under Section 246(6) Cr.P.C. in a forgery case. The Court upheld the Sessions Judge's decision, holding that the complainant could present supplementary witnesses (including experts not originally listed) if evidence advances justice, distinguishing between an earlier rejected application regarding a sale deed and the current application concerning the disputed affidavit at issue's core. The judgment emphasized that procedural technicalities should not exclude relevant evidence essential for truth-discovery in criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts