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

2000 Supreme(Guj) 970

H.H.MEHTA
NAVINCHANDRA DHARMASHIBHAI DOSHI – Appellant
Versus
NATVARLAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.Y.MANKAD, D.F.Amin, P.R.ABICHANDANI, YATIN SONI

H. H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE original accused No. 2 of Criminal Case No. 1106/97 which is still pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad (for short `the learned Magistrate) has by filing this Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenged correctness, legality and propriety of judgment Exh. 14 dated 15th September, 1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (for short `the learned Judge of the Revisional Court) in Criminal Revision Application No. 148/99.

( 2 ) HERE in this Criminal Revision Application, the Revision-Petitioner is an original accused No. 2 while revision opponents No. 1 and 2 are complainant and accused No. 1 respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as `complainant and `accused No. 1 and 2 respectively at appropriate places.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this Criminal Revision Application in a nutshell are as follows:3. 1 on or about 5th April, 1997, the complainant lodged his private complaint against both the accused i. e. accused No. 1 and 2 for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of















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