Criminal Revision displaced due to absence of the revisionist despite serving a bailable warrant. Court held the impugned order on the discharge application was not revisable.
Instant criminal revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 606 of 1992
Revisionist :- S.P. Nanda And Another Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinod Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to argue the case.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 15.01.1992 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Case No. 3025/1991 (State Vs. S.P. Nanda and others) under Section 32/92 of the Factories Act.
Revisionists have filed application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge. By the impugned order learned Magistrate observed that this application is not signed by accused/revisionist. Against accused S.P. Nanda, bailable warrant was issued.
From perusal of impugned order, it is evident that no order has been passed on application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. Impugned order passed by Magistrate is not revisable.
In the result, instant criminal revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Sharad/-
S.P. Nanda And Another
State
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
