SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

BISWAJIT PALIT
Tapan Debnath @ Badal – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Alik Das, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Alik Das, Learned Counsel

representing the petitioner and also heard Learned P.P. Mr. Raju Datta representing the State.

2. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is filed for setting aside the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by Learned Special Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in connection with case no.Special no.22 of 2023 (POCSO).

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid case is pending before the Court of Learned Special Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur and before the said Court, the accused-petitioner filed an application for discharging the accused under Section 227 of Cr.P.C on the ground that the victim of this case although has been projected as a minor but from the copy of birth certificate, it appears that she was major on the day of the alleged occurrence of offence. So, no charge can be framed against the accused-petitioner under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. But the Learned Trial Court did not consider the petition and rejected the application of the petitioner-accused and fixed the case for framing of charge.

4. Learned P.P. Mr. Raju Datta representing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top