Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Irshad Ajmeri v. Smt. Sarvari Begam - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 650 of 1990 [2007] RD-AH 9510 (18 May 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).


Court No.11

Criminal Revision No. 650 of 1990

Irshad Ajmeri Vs. Smt. Sarvari Begum alias Sallo


Hon'ble V.D.Chaturvedi, J.

This Criminal Revision  has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.2.90 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Criminal Revision  No.198 of 1988 whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 9.9.1988 passed by the Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the court of Magistrate.

The relevant facts are briefly that a F.I.R. by Smt. Sarvari Begum was lodged against the revisionist for offence u/s 406 I.P.C. The police submitted the final report in the said case which was accepted by the Magistrate concerned on 9.9.1988. The revision filed against the said order dated 9.9.1988 was allowed and the order dated 9.9.1988 was set aside and the matter was remanded back, hence this revision.

None is present for the revisionist .

I have heard the learned A.G.A. and have also perused the record.

I have perused the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision  No.198 of 1988 . It is true that Magistrate gave undue importance to the non production of the witness Mateen and consequently accepted the final report. The Addl. Sessions Judge held that although the Magistrate ordered to issue the  summons  to compel the presence of the witness Mateen but the office never issued the summons for the witness Mateen and the order of the Magistrate remained confined to the order sheet and could never be complied with by his own office.

On the above mentioned ground the Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the revision, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate and remanded back the matter. The order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge is correct, proper and legal. It needs no interference. The revision has no merit hence dismissed.

The Magistrate concerned will dispose of the matter pending before him in the light of the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in the aforesaid revision.

Communicate this order to the court below within 3 weeks.




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 |

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