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

1991 Supreme(All) 131

D.P.S.CHAUHAN
LAKHAN MALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J.

Counter-affidavit filed. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the date of occurrence was 4-1-1990 and the F. I. R. was lodged on 4-3-1990 and on this submission was advanced that the F. I. R. was highly belated.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the F. I. R. which shows the date of occurrence and date of information as 4-1-1991 but at the bottom below and above the signatures of the Lekhan the date 4-2-1990 is mentioned.

4. However, in view of the averments made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court issued a notice to the deponent of the affidavit, Shri Radhey Shyam, on 16-3- 1990, to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. , may not be taken against him.

5. In para 2 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the date of occur rence and date of lodging of the F. LR. is 4-2-1990 but, by mistake, the Munshi of P. S. Kotwali, Lalitpur, wrote 4-1-1990 istead of 4-2- 1990.

6. On account of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P. C. and the aforesaid incor









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