Petitioner sought leave to withdraw a criminal revision petition after realizing the correct remedy was an appeal under CrPC. Court granted permission to withdraw, allowing future limit benefits on appeal.
Permission granted to withdraw the revision petition; petitioner may claim limitation benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in a future appeal.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Revision No. 61 of 2017
Date of decision: June 01, 2017.
Hem Singh …...Petitioner.
Versus
Nanak Chand & anr. …..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
| For the petitioner | : | Mr. Vikas Rath | ore, Advocate. |
|---|---|---|---|
| For the respondents | : | Mr. Onkar respondent No. |
Jairath, Advocate, for 1. |
| Mr. Pramod respondent No. |
Thakur, Addl. AG, for 2. |
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
Learned Counsel representing the petitioner now realizing that against the judgment under challenge appeal should have been filed under sub Section 4 of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the present petition at this stage. Permission granted. In the event of an appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment, he shall be at liberty to seek the benefit of
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
2
the provisions contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. With these observations the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.
June 01, 2017, (vs)
Hem Singh
Nanak Chand
Dharam Chand Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
