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

2008 Supreme(Raj) 2658

C.M.TOTLA
Guman Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner:N.K. Rastogi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.

JUDGMENT
C.M Totla , J. - Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State.2. Petitioner conflicted and sentenced for the offence of Section 420 I.P.C. in course of hearing of first appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara, preferred an application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for taking on record the order dated 28.2.2005, which rejected by learned Judge vide order dated 28.4.2008. Petitioner requests that reversing the above order, his application be allowed.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (i) for petitioner charge is for obtaining Government employment disclosing wrong facts in application dated 14.11.1994 (ii) District Collector vide order dated 28.2.2005 exonerated petitioner in disciplinary proceedings (iii) since for the same is the charge and above mentioned order dated 28.2.2005, so taking this document on record and accepting it is necessary for just decision of the case. Argued that due to oversight or inadvertence, or even error, if document could not be exhibited in trial Court Section 391 Cr.P.C. is vide enough to allow such documents even at belated stage. Submitted that as the document is relevant for just decision 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