Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/299/2017 of RAJESH GULATI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 17 December 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS CRLA No. 299 of 2017 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, Advocate for the appellant, through video
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.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
CRLA No. 299 of 2017 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Neelima Mishra Joshi, Advocate for the appellant, through video conferencing. Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for the informant. Present appeal was decided on 17.12.2025. On 18.12.2025, learned counsel for the informant had mentioned that in the judgment dated 17.12.2025 of this Court, the name of PW 1 has wrongly been written as Suraj Kumar Pradhan, whereas the name of PW 1 is Sujan Kumar Pradhan. It is thereafter this matter is listed today. Heard. Learned counsel for the informant submits that in the judgment dated 17.12.2025, due to typographical error, at various places, the name of PW 1 has wrongly been written as Suraj Kumar Pradhan, whereas the name of PW 1 is Sujan Kumar Pradhan. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that this error has crept in at various places. Having heard, this Court is of the view this typographical error is required to be corrected. Accordingly, at the last page of the judgment, the following note be written:- “Note: In this judgment, wherever the words ‘PW 1 Suraj Kumar Pradhan’ is written, it shall be read as ‘PW 1 Sujan Kumar Pradhan’.” After the Note, the following line may be added:- “Corrected vide order dated 22.12.2025 passed by this Court.” The judgment, which has been updated on the website of the High Court be also updated with the remark on the last line, as noted hereinabove. One more correction is suggested, which is that at para 79, internal page 29, PW 31 “Vishu Pradhan” be corrected as PW 31 “Vishu Sharma”. This is corrected accordingly. The corrected portion may also be accordingly updated on the website of the High Court.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani J.)
22.12.2025 22.12.2025 Avneet/