Vimhans v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court set aside two non-speaking orders from the lower court due to an inadvertent omission. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a re-hearing regarding the point of charge and proper order passage.
What did the court decide?
The orders dated 24.10.2011 and 7.12.2011 were set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for re-hearing on the point of charge.
What the court decided
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
ro
order dated 24.10.2011, inadvertent omission of the letter A was made, and instead of Section 304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 304 IPC was mentioned. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, the matter may be remanded back to the Trial Court after setting aside both the orders dated 24.10.2011 and 7.12.2011.
- I have also perused the impugned order dated 7.12.2011 and find it to be a non-speaking order and in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 7.12.2011 and the order dated 24.10.2011 and remand the matter back to the Trial Court for re-hearing on the point of charge and passing of an order as per law. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 26.2.2019.
- The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Interim order stands vacated. Pending applications also stand disposed of. 4. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petition or contentions of both the parties.
o
CHANb™ SHEKHAR, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2019/rk
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court should re-examine the charge after an inadvertent error in citing the correct section of the IPC.
Coram
CHANm SHEKHAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court