Petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application seeking quashing of acquittal order against him. Court dismissed the revision holding there was no possibility of interfering with the Judicial Magistrate's decision.
Quashing of the judgment and order of acquittal dismissed. Rule discharged.
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.
1 Revision 294/2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Criminal Revision Application No.294 of 2001
Versus
Shri. V.B. Jadhav, Advocate, holding for Shri. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. S.B. Pulkundwar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1.
Shri. P.P. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 4th DECEMBER 2014 JUDGMENT:
setting aide the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon delivered in Regular
2 Revision 294/2001
Criminal Case No.133/1996. The Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the respondent of the offences punishable under sections 325, 324, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a police case. Both the sides are heard.
3 Revision 294/2001
4 Revision 294/2001
5 Revision 294/2001
holds that there is no possibility of interference in the decision given by the Judicial Magistrate. In the result, the revision stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is a possibility of interference in the decision of the Judicial Magistrate in a criminal revision application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sharad s/o Bhaskar Sonwane
Pradeep s/o Shivdas Sonwane
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
