Back
CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Rajkumar Meena – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural history and orders (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the validity of previous orders (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's review of proceedings and observations (Para 6 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. interpretation of section 45 of the evidence act (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. final decision to quash previous orders (Para 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
Chandra Kumar Songara, J.
Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter, Chomu (herein-after referred to as 'the Revisional Court'), in Criminal Revision No.50/2019, whereby the revision petition filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.22, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter Chomu dismissing the application under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs.1000/-, was confirmed.
2. Relevant facts, in brief, of the present case are that the complainant-respondent has lodged a com
Negotiable instruments – Expert opinion for signature - whether the signature appearing on Ex.D.1 is that of the complainant or not. Under such circumstances, it is essential that the best and the co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow or reject belated applications under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the Court, and no hard and fast rule....
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
