U.Mishra v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge dismissed a criminal revision filed under Sections 409, 467, 468, and 120B IPC against a conviction for malicious withdrawal of funds via forged orders, finding no illegality in the lower court's order.
What did the court decide?
Revision dismissed as there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
What the court decided
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 703 of 1992
Revisionist :- U.Mishra Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- P.Prakash,Birendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present to argue the case. However, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. is present.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.04.1992 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria in Case No. 1196 of 1992 (State v. Rajvanshi) arising out of Case Crime No. 590 of 1991, under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Rampur Karkhana, District - Deoria.
As per prosecution version, the complainant was informed by the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria that the revisionist in collusion with other co-accused had maliciously withdrawn Rs. 57,000/- from account of the employees of a school on the basis of forged order. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. On the basis of charge-sheet, impugned order has been passed.
Perused the impugned order. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
U.Mishra
- respondent
State
Coram
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/703/1992
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court