Criminal Revision No. 2208 of 1999 discharged in default viz-a-vis absence of revisionist. Court decided on merits, found no illegality, and dismissed the revision. Stay vacated.
Revision dismissed; any stay order 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. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2208 of 1999
Revisionist :- Sheo Mohan Dalmia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- S.R.Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Navin Sinha,Vipin Sinha
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Order Date :- 20.2.2019
m.a.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision should be dismissed in default due to the revisionist's absence or decided on merits.
Whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order rejecting the discharge application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh vs. State of U.P.Distinguished¶8
(2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sheo Mohan Dalmia
State Of U.P.
Another
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
