REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

FIDA HUSSAIN Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U. P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

UMA SHANKAR CHAURASIA VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUNDU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
GOLBAR HUSSAIN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
KALI RAM VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SUNIL [REFERRED TO]
THAMAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJARAM [REFERRED TO]
DEVATHA VENKATASWAMY RANGAIAH VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
ROHTASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
TOMASO BRUNO VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
RAMBRAKSH @ JALIM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appeared for the revisionist. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record. Since the criminal revision can not be dismissed in default, hence this revision is being decided on merit.

(2.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.T. No. 630 of 2005 (State Vs. Ram Chandra and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 333 of 2004 under Sec. 302 I.P.C. Police Station- Bhuta, Bareilly, by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. XI, Bareilly on 9/1/2009.

(3.) In brief, the revision has been filed on the grounds that Additional Session Judge has not considered all the facts and circumstances and acquitted respondent no.1 which is not correct in the eyes of law. He has not passed the judgment in accordance with criminal law, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside and revision be allowed.

Click here to view full judgment.

FIDA HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address