Chhattisgarh High Court
CRR/1122/2000 of Kamal Kishore Agrawal Vs State of M. P. on 29 November 2000
IN SHB HIQH COURS O? JUBICATURE AT JABALpUR M.P. CR3MWAL 'KEvisiQI3 N0.\\ '2<~2-~/2000 APPLICANTS • • • • lo Kamal Kishore Agrawal S/o.Banarsidas Afrawal Aged abo ut 36 years Oce. c as ln ess 2, Slari^eila^ tgrawal Aged about 40 years S/o Baaarasidas Agrawal
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.
c pl^CF0060118025"IN SHB HIQH COURS O? JUBICATURE AT JABALpUR M.P.CR3MWAL 'KEvisiQI3 N0.\\ '2<~2-~/2000APPLICANTS• • • •loKamal Kishore AgrawalS/o.Banarsidas AfrawalAged abo ut 36 years Oce. c as ln ess2,Slari^eila^ tgrawalAged about 40 yearsS/o Baaarasidas AgrawalQcc» Basiness3oSrat» £>antosh W/o .Ka-Llash AgrawalAged 36 years jlfeuse wife4»Sat. Oaandra Kala W/o BanarsidasAgrawai.^ Aged 62 years a?use wifeAil residents of RaraNiwas Talkies 'soad^aadhi Ganj, &aigarh Mstt, Saigarb(M<P.)^VERSUSNON M'PLICAKTTState of M»P,'ihzoagb Police Statton KotwaliBaigarh,CR3MINAL RBVISION mijSEL SECSIQB 39T/401 OF CR3MISAI,' '•"'"'':;IP&OCEB0RIS1'-'COEK«:;-" -:'' ""-'; ''"::' ••• "- -;: •\';:;;'.
XI-HC-22
^%T ^g^ia^^ :'^^W^IIt,' ^il^^i^'-
STI^T T?5|^^r.RaIl22/2000^ 199
*IINCTJ SHHI^
^^T^Tf<ylicb 37?^TsbHW ^f^a
3*1^11V^3R ( yifyiqst)
cM^(<n<fli iTFRff ^* f^A Tf^TgR^w^ifl^Tl ^cnw «f^a'^STf^W^Tl^Tobserved that.the per son.|who has - -s-ent his-.-"•'--.'reportfco the S^D^Mo has|.p^^b^en[cited][ as][ a~]•wltness in thellst of wi|fcness.es submitted by.[.].the prosecution and if ^|jich,[•^..]person- is examxned..:.,.'then the applJLcants; may,r.equlre.him.to .producef ••..^•the said-'record.e<•,After hearln-g -t|^c-learned dounsel' for.the partles^I am unable|to 'hold • that..- the Courtbelow was unjustifiedin]re-jedting th'e application-'-^\.•..'•and givingfche opportuni]by in favour of the appl iaa-nfcs.It is ^ however ^ orderedfchat if.the said Executi-v.e :''•Hagistrat.e H.xteshwarSin|ghis no.t examined. as aprosecu-tion witne'ss : by .1he '.'State^ .the.n the trlalCourt shall be duty-bouxildto. .summon -saxd -Hiteshwar -.• Si.ngh asa. -defencewitnelss.on.:-a request to be^made. -•-'.by.-the preseht\'.•'.'applicantjs.-accused. •-is.-accused-.and1 i£ .theapplicants require theslaidwifness to br-ing thesaid re.port dated 4.7.96then['the:]-witness w3-uld be-..,asked. to::: produce the saiy^report t^x -the C(3art if^..'the .report:'isxn existen|ceo- ;Wlth. tihe ;directi9n.^'aforesaid^the petitionts:. disposed 'of<' ^NSd/-R.S. GargJudgeJ_i.