D.P.S.CHAUHAN
LAKHAN MALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.