The State Of Himachal Pradesh Chief Secretary vs. Deen Mohd

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 1136/2014 (ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05/07/2013 IN CRLA NO. 367/2007 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA)

(WITH OFFICE REPORT)

STATE OF H.P PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

SANJAY KANWAR @ SANJU RESPONDENT(S) (WITH APPLN. (S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND STAY AND OFFICE REPORT) WITH CRL.A. NO. 1192/2010 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) CRL.A. NO. 2207/2010 CRL.A. NO. 1062/2011 CRL.A. NO. 1063/2011 SLP(CRL) NO. 1230/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(CRL) NO. 1233/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(CRL) NO. 1365/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(CRL) NO. 1366/2014 (WITH APPLN.(S) FOR STAY AND OFFICE REPORT) SLP(CRL) NO. 1367-1368/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(CRL) NO. 1730/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SLP(CRL) NO. 1735/2014 Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.02.03 16:56:13 IST Reason: Page No.1 of 3 SLP(CRL) NO. 2852/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) SLP(CRL) NO. 3223/2014 (WITH OFFICE REPORT) CRL.A. NO. 912/2010 SLP(CRL) NO. 805/2014

(WITH OFFICE REPORT) Date : 03/02/2015 These cases were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Parties (s) Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, AAG Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. P. Jha, Adv. Mr. S.L. Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shalu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Joginder Singh Kanwar, Adv. Mr. Ram Ashray, Adv. Mr. Brahm Shankar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Page No.2 of 3 Mr. Deepak Mishra, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Adv. Mr. J.K. Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep D. Das, Adv. Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. Mr. D.M. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Gaur, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This group of 17 cases will have to be heard

SLP(CRL) NO. 3224/2014

analogously inasmuch as the issue/question of law that arises is common. We are informed by the Office that in some of the cases service is not complete. If the Court is to decide the cases where service is complete, the same may adversely affect the accused who are respondents in the

connected matters where service is yet to be effected. We,

therefore, direct the Office to ensure completion of service of notice on the respondents in all the cases and thereafter list the cases for hearing as a group matter.

[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Page No.3 of 3