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

2013 Supreme(Chh) 75

G.Minhajuddin
MANHARANCHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF C. G. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. V.C. Ottalwar, Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Devesh Verma, Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard on application (LA. No.2 of 2013) for condonation of delay in payment of process fee.

2. Delay condoned.

3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the revision is finally heard at the admission stage.

4. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revision petitioners against the order dated 3.1.2013 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Revision No. 101/2012, whereby order dated 30.10.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaijaipur(for short, "JMFC") allowing the application of the revision petitioners filed under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C, has been set-aside and the said application has been rejected as premature.

5. Facts, in brief, are that the revision petitioners were arrested in connection with Crime No. 110/2011 of Police Station-Jaijaipur, Tehsil-Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 1.8.2012. On the same date i.e. 1.8.2012, the revision petitioners were produced before the JMFC and were remanded to judicial custody. On 30.1 0.2012, an application under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed on the ground that as 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