RAHIS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Rahis v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 558 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 16966 (26 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 14

Criminal Revision No. 558 of 2004

Rahis .................... Revisionist

Versus

State of U.P. ......................Opp. Party

------------

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Singh, J.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Mathura, in S.T. No. 589 of 1998 ( State Vs. Ismail and others) under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 202, 201 and 212 I.P.C. and 4/5 of Explosives Substances Act, Police Station Farah, district Mathura by which the learned Magistrate directed that the charges be framed against the accused Ismail, Amru, Raheesh, Sharif and Latif for the abovementioned offences and directed the accused to be present on 9.1.2004 for framing of charge.

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records of this case. None turned up on behalf of the revisionist to argue this revision.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate before passing the impugned order heard learned counsel for the accused and learned A.D.C. (Crl.) at length and also perused the case diary. Learned Magistrate was of the view that during the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected evidence regarding recovery of explosive substances and also recorded statements of the witnesses regarding the said recovery and the information as to the persons who had concealed the explosive substances. Learned Magistrate was also of the view that prima facie there are grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the abovementioned offences.

I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which needs no interference.

In view of the above, the revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.

Dated 26.10.2007

S.B.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.