Criminal revision application seeking quashing or modification of a trial court order directing destruction of seized articles after acquittal under Section 188 IPC. The State was not impleaded, so the petitioner was permitted to withdraw with liberty to file afresh adding necessary parties.
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC030006692024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./3/2024
Smt. Rotinmani D/o Sangpianga (L) R/o Zemabawk North Aizawl, Mizoram
VERSUS District Magistrate Mamit District, Mizoram
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu
Advocate for the Respondent :
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER
04.11.2024
Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed the instant application under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing or modifying the order dated 23.08.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mamit, with regards to para 21 of the judgment and order wherein the learned Trial Court had ordered the destruction of the seized articles while acquitting the petitioners against the charge leveled against them under Section
Page No.# 2/2
188 of IPC.
However, it is seen that the State has not been made a party in the instant
case.
In view of the above, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the instant application with a permission to file afresh by including the necessary parties in the instant Criminal Revision Petition.
JUDGE
Annette
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Rotinmani D/o Sangpianga
District Magistrate Mamit District, Mizoram
Marli Vankung
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
