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

2000 Supreme(All) 409

KRISHNA KUMAR
RAVINDRA NATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This revision has been filed against order dated 24-2-1999 whereby the learned Additional Ses sions Judge ordered for framing of charge. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 323 I. P. C. How ever, on the intervention of the public prosecutor, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Section 307, I. P. C. It may be stated that the opinion given by the A. P. O. to the Investigating Officer has nothing to do with this case. The relevant fact is that the supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted under Section 307 I. RC. and further, the learned lower Court found that prima facie it is also a case under Section 307 I. P. C. It may also be mentioned that the case also registered under Sections 307, 323, 506 I. P. C. It was satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and when he found that prima facie case under Section 307 I. P. C. is made out, it is finding of fact and cannot be assailed in revision.

2. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any force in this revision which is hereby rejected.

Revision dismissed.


.

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