A single judge, perusing the record in the absence of the revisionist, found no manifest error or illegality to justify interference in the criminal revision seeking quashing of convicted appellant's sentence.
Application for revision dismissed. Impugned orders of conviction and sentence confirmed.
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. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 100 of 2000
Revisionist :- Tejbir Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 AK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned appellate order confirming conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court warrants interference in revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. due to manifest error or illegality.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tejbir Singh
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
