Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/152/2005 of BIRENDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs RAJENDRA SINGH and ORS. on 31 December 2012
of 2005 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. None has turned up on behalf of revisionist even in the second revised call, so this Court rendered hearing to Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for private
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CRLR No. 152 of 2005
Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
None has turned up on behalf of revisionist even in the second revised call, so this Court rendered hearing to Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for private respondents.
Since this matter pertains to the year 2005, hence, is taken up on priority basis.
This revision is filed against the judgment dated 25.06.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Dehradun acquitting the accused Rajendra Singh @ Raju and Jaya Prasad @ Gaya Prasad, who were tried for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC. There were allegations of some interpolation regarding caste certificate of accused persons in the revenue records, which was complained of by Birendra Singh Rawat (revisionist).
A chargesheet was submitted and accused persons were tried but the learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence, found no offence proved. There was no evidence at all, except the evidence of complainant. No interpolation or fabrication on any document was found, as alleged by the complainant.
This Court has perused the impugned judgment and found that there is no illegality or incongruity or impropriety in the said judgment and the revisionist has not drafted even a single substantial ground to challenge the impugned order.
There is no merit in the revision and as such, the same is dismissed.
Lower court record be sent back.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)
31.12.2012