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

2009 Supreme(Pat) 16

NAVIN SINHA
Manoj Sah @ Manoj Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

2. Gobindganj PS Case No. 91 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner on 3.8.2000 under Sections 323. 341, 353 and 307/34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The allegations were that he threw a bomb which did not explode. He was apprehended with another bomb in his pocket, which exploded, causing his jeans to tear, leading to a smell of gun powder. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 341 and 353 of the Penal Code only. Cognizance was taken and the matter went to trial.

3. The prosecution failed to examine any witness. Despite best efforts of the Court to procure attendance of the prosecution witness no one turned up to adduce evidence. The petitioner denied the allegations. The petitioner was then acquitted in G.R. Case No. 1494 of 2000 corresponding to Tr. No. 460 of 2004 by a judgment and order dated 30.9.2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari as the charge-sheeted offences were all triable by a Magistrate. Though charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 341 and 353 of the Penal













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