Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMAR SINGH RATHORE AND ANOR versus STATE AND ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AMAR SINGH RATHORE AND ANOR v STATE AND ORS - CRLR Case No. 396 of 2001 [2007] RD-RJ 1571 (2 April 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 396/2001

SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE & ANR.

Vs.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE: 02.04.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. J.P. Goyal for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Mr. P.S. Sirohi for the respondents.

****

The present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 17.05.2001 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Essential Commodities

Act), Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 62/1999 reversing the order dated 31.03.93 passed by the

Additional District Magistrate-II, Jaipur City in

Criminal Misc. Case No. 86/82 under Section 145

Cr.P.C., whereby possession of the disputed property was declared to be of the petitioners and held entitled to get back the possession.

The impugned order dated 17.05.2001 passed by the Revisional Court has been assailed on several counts. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Revisional Court has not rightly exercised its powers.

(2)

On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Revisional Court has rightly observed and set-aside the order dated 31.03.93 passed by the Additional District Magistrate-II, Jaipur

City.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and upon careful perusal of the relevant record as also the impugned order dated 17.05.2001, it appears that the

Revisional Court has not properly considered this aspect that who is the actual owner of the plot in question and further while reversing the order dated 31.03.93 passed by the Additional District Magistrate-

II, Jaipur, the Revisional Court has also not considered the fact that the respondent No.2 Smt. Babli

Devi was not party to the case before the Court below and filed the revision petition and further more several aspects have not been properly considered by the Revisional Court, which are required to be considered thoroughly.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2001 passed by the Revisional Court and remand the matter back to the Revisional Court for fresh adjudication after giving due consideration to

(3) the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and shall pass fresh order on merit.

With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.

Record be sent back forthwith.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


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.