Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHAND NARAIN PATWARI versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHAND NARAIN PATWARI v STATE - CRLR Case No. 764 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 1350 (15 March 2007)

(1)

M/s Accurate Pipes & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Vs.

Union of India

(S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.764/2006) 08.05.2007

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ______________________________________

Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the petitioners.

Mr. Panney Singh for the U.O.I.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that written submissions were made on behalf of the petitioners as well as other accused person P.C. Bhatnagar; but, at the time of passing order dated 24.05.2006 for the purpose of framing charge, the written submissions of the co-accused P.C.

Bhatnagar was considered but written submissions of the petitioners were not considered by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that written submissions are on record in the file of the trial

Court and the same were not considered by the learned trial

Court. He prays that the case may be remitted to the trial Court for passing fresh order after taking into consideration the written submissions advanced by the petitioners.

(2)

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Union of

India submitted that no interference is warranted with the impugned order because the trial Court has effectively considered the oral submissions of the petitioners and written submissions advanced by the co-accused P.C. Bhatnagar was considered. He has thus supported the order under challenge.

It is specifically mentioned in the impugned order that written arguments submitted by co-accused P.C. Bhatnagar were considered but upon perusal of the order it appears that the written submissions advanced by the petitioners were not considered. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside qua the petitioners and the case is remitted to the learned trial Court for passing fresh orders qua the petitioners after considering the written submissions which is already on record, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners. The remaining part of the order in respect of framing charge against other co-accused shall remain intact.

With aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.

(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.

(3)


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.