Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAPPU JOGI @ RAGHUVEER NATH versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PAPPU JOGI @ RAGHUVEER NATH v STATE - CRLR Case No. 88 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 696 (5 February 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 88/2007

PAPPU JOGI @ RAGHUVEER NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE: 05.02.2007.

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

Mr. D.D. Khandelwal for the accused-petitioner.

Mr. Ashwani Sharma, PP for the State.

****

Heard rival submissions of the respective parties on the application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act. Although the accused-petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court with regard to delay of 102 days in filing the present revision petition, but in the interest of justice, I heard this revision petition on merit also.

The present revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 24.03.2006 passed by the Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer in

Criminal Appeal No. 128/2005, whereby the Appellate

Court has maintained the judgment dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial

Magistrate No.3, Ajmer by which the accused-petitioner

Pappu Jogi @ Raghuveer Nath has been convicted under

Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

(2) imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two days.

It is not disputed that the appeal is still pending before the SC/ST Court. Therefore, at this stage, I do not want to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.03.2006 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer, but in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the

Appellate Court to decided the said appeal expeditiously, but in any case not beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With these observations, the revision petition stands dismissed.

The application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act also stands rejected.

(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.