This criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenged an acquittal order. The revisionist failed to demonstrate that the lower court's findings were perverse. Consequently, the court found no manifest error and dismissed the revision.
The criminal revision has been dismissed. Any interim order stands vacated.
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. - 1778 of 2000
Revisionist :- Mohd. Nizam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sarvesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court's findings in an acquittal order were perverse or contrary to material on record warranting interference.
Whether manifest illegality or error exists to justify revision of an order acquitting accused persons.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Nizam
State of U.P.
Others
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
