Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YADUNANDAN SHARMA versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


YADUNANDAN SHARMA v STATE - CRLR Case No. 1329 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 2097 (18 April 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1329/2006

YADUNANDAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Date of order: 18.04.2007.

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

Mr. S.S. Hora for the petitioner.

Mr. S.N. Gupta, Public Prosecutor for the State.

****

The present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 39/2006, whereby additional charges have been framed against Yadunandan Sharma and

Ajat Shatru for the offence under Sections 3/25 and 3/30 of the Arms Act and they were also called but the prayer which was made by the petitioner that in eventuality of framing additional charges under

Sections 3/25 and 3/30 of the Arms Act, witnesses Zakir

Hussain, Khadim Hussain and Wasim Qureshi be recalled as they are essentially required, has been rejected and in the interest of justice it is necessary that they may be recalled.

Upon careful perusal of the impugned order dated 07.10.2006, it appears that the application moved

(2) on behalf of the prosecution has been allowed for framing additional charges against Yadunandan Sharma and Ajat Shatru under Sections 3/25 and 3/30 of the

Arms Act but the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid witnesses may be recalled, has been rejected.

I find illegality and error apparent on the face of the record and the trial Court has committed an illegality in disallowing the application moved on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, so far as rejection of the application moved on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the impugned order dated 07.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track) No.3, Bundi is hereby quashed and set- aside and for reconsideration the matter is remanded back to the Court below for deciding the application moved on behalf of the petitioner on its merit afresh for recalling the aforesaid witnesses. The rest of the impugned order dated 07.10.2006 is upheld and requires no interference by this Court.

With the aforesaid 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.