Back
Leelawati @ Leela Devi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
2. The genesis of the dispute lies in the complaint submitted by the Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited against accused Jagdish s/o Lal Chand and Raju s/o Kishan under Sections 135 and 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2003’), before the learned court below, alleging therein that while inspecting House No.112, Shiv Colony, on 24.06.2004 at about 6:20 p.m., it was found that the said accused persons were engaged in the theft of electricity; whereupon, cognizance was taken by the learned court below and the proceedings accordingly commenced.
2.1 During the course of the proceedings before the learned court below, accused-Jagdish filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with the pr
For invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ....
Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon the inquiry with regard to facts of the case, particularly when the courts below had applied its mind and taken a view, which does ....
The discretionary nature of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the requirement of stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity, and the court's active role in eliciting necessary materials and finding the....
Court under revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute its own views particularly when there was ample evidence available on record before the court below in exercising the jurisdiction as conferred u....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
