In this criminal revision, the High Court personally perused the record as no one appeared to press the revision. Finding no manifest error or illegality in the acquittal order of the Sessions Judge, the Court dismissed the revision and vacated any interim order.
Revision dismissed; interim 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. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 398 of 1999
Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamal Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Siddhant Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the criminal revision filed by the revisionist against the acquittal order.
If any manifest error or illegality exists in the lower court's acquittal warranting interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Kumar
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
