The Patna High Court in this criminal appeal rejected the appellant's petition under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C., finding no cogent reason for a new proceeding after the lower court had already rejected a Section 340 petition.
The appeal under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.761 of 2013
====================================================== Ram Naresh Singh, S/o Late Ram Briksh Singh, resident of VillageTehwara, P.S.-Katra, Dist-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Kishore Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
4 02-01-2014 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
Appellant is more anxious with regard to fate of his case which has been filed by him for kidnapping of Ravindra Kumar Singh, his brother, who was an accused in Sessions Trial No.1/2009. In the aforesaid background, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that brother of the appellant, namely, Ravindra Kumar Singh is still traceless and so on 16.2.2010 certainly he was impersonated by the other co-accused so that the judgment would be facilitated. After coming to know about the same, a petition was filed in terms of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned lower Court itself but as the same was rejected, arisen out a cause of instant petition in terms of Section 341 of the Cr.P.C.
Gone through order impugned. Both two cases, as referred above, have got two independent fragrances and without having the event of overlapping in the background of judgment
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.761 of 2013 (4) dt.02-01-20
2 / 2
dated 16.2.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.1/2009, I do not see any cogent reason to accede with the prayer of the appellant. Appeal is rejected.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Pawan/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant was entitled to a fresh proceeding under Section 341 Cr.P.C. after rejection of his motion under Section 340 Cr.P.C. regarding impersonation of a traceless accused
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Naresh Singh
The State of Bihar
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
