The High Court dispensed with the delay in filing a criminal revision. The revision, challenging a rejection of an order recalling a witness under Section 311 CrPC in a corruption case, was dismissed as there was no jurisdictional error found in impugned order.
Application for condonation of delay allowed; Criminal Revision dismissed.
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
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.670 of 2015
Kamta Prasad Sahu, S/o Shri Nirbhay Ram Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o Behind Kalee Mandir Bastar Road Soride Nagar, P.S. District Dhamtari (C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through A.C.B. Office Raipur.
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Shri Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
03/09/2015
(1) Heard on I.A.No.01/2015, application for condonation of delay in
filing the criminal revision.
(2) On due consideration, I am satisfied that the applicant has succeeded in explaining the cause of delay in filing the criminal revision and, therefore, I.A.No.01/2015 is allowed. The delay is condoned.
(3) Heard on admission.
(4) By the impugned order dated 16.04.2015, the applicant's application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. read with 19 of the
2
provisions of the Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected by the Special Judge (P.C.Act), District Dhamtari finding that Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, who has proved that the sanction order has already been examined on 16.09.2011 and there is no ground for re-examination of the said witness.
(5) After hearing learned counsel appearing for the applicant I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order to recall the said witness after the period of four weeks.
(6) The revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
L/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the criminal revision deserves condonation.
Whether there is jurisdictional error to recall the witness after four weeks.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kamta Prasad Sahu
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
