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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 2720

B.M.KALAGATE
Rayappa – Appellant
Versus
Shivamma – Respondent


Advocates:
Manohar Rao Jagirdar, Advocate, for Petitioners.
K.A. Swamy, Advocate, for Respondent.

Order.-

The petitioners have preferred this Revision Petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order, dated 5th October, 1962, made by the District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 85/6 of 1962. By that order, he confirmed the order of the District Magistrate, Raichur, who restored the complaint dismissed by him to its original number.

The respondent made a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Raichur, against the accused who are the present petitioners, complaining that they have committed an offence punishable under sections 464 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint came to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 16th July, 1962 for non-appearance of the complainant, the effect of which is to discharge the accused under section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 21st July, 1962, the respondent made an application stating therein that she, on account of difficulties, could not appear in Court in time and her Lawyer was also absent. The learned Judge accepted the application holding that he recollected that the complainant did approach the Court after the order of dismissal and relying up



































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