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

1962 Supreme(Raj) 255

C.B.BHARGAVA
DHANNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent


Judgment


C. B. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of Dhanna, Jagannath and Kana under Section 561a of the Code of Criminal Procedure for allowing them rehearing in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 1962 which was rejected by the Court on 26th november, 1962.

( 2 ) AT the time of hearing of the appeal, appellants and their counsel were absent and the appeal was decided after a perusal of the record of the case. The judgment was delivered orally in open Court. Before the transcript of the judgment was prepared by the judgment-writer, an application was moved that the transcript of the judgment should not be signed. Accordingly I did not sign the transcript pending hearing of this application.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel is that I can rehear the appeal because the judgment passed on 26th November, 1962 has not been signed. He says that section 369 of the Code applies only when a judgment has been signed and till then the Court can alter or review its judgment. It is also stated in the application that the learned counsel had two more cases fixed in the Daily Cause List of the high Court of 26th November, 1962 before two other Benches and besides had o






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