The High Court dismissed the criminal revision against the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 91(1) CrPC. It held that the rejection was for maintainability and did not prevent the accused from adding evidence in defense.
Revision dismissed with no order as to the cost.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128522
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1238 of 2023
Revisionist :- Sudhir Mishra @ Atal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Anshu Chaudhary,Vinay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shiva Kant Dubey
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of an application under Section 91(1) CrPC under the guise of non-maintainability amounts to prohibiting the accused from adducing evidence during the trial.
Sudhir Mishra @ Atal
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
