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

2021 Supreme(UK) 24

R.C.KHULBE
Harish Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Pingal, adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Siddartha Bihst, adv

JUDGMENT :

Since the revision is time barred, accordingly, delay condonation application (CRMA No.751 of 2020) has been moved. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed and delay in preferring the present revision is condoned.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Admit.

4. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No.16 of 2018, “State Vs. Harish Singh” whereby the revisionist was convicted u/s 380 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation and U/s 457 IPC to undergo five years’ R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation as well as the judgment and order dated 10.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in criminal appeal no.29 of 2018, “Harish Singh Vs. State”, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed judgment and order dated 11.10

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