The High Court at Patna heard an oral order where the appellant's counsel was absent. The court noted non-prosecution and dismissed the appeal under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
The appeal has been 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1239 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2002 Thana- KACCHWA District- Rohtas
======================================================
ARUN BAITHA, Son of Late Sitaram Baitha Resident of Village - Dhanhara, P.S.- Karakat (Kachhwan), Distt - Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
7 22-07-2019 Learned counsel for the appellant is absent while
learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present.
Considering the nature of the sentence so inflicted by
the learned lower Court in accordance with Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, on account of non-prosecution, appeal is dismissed.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
vikash/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to determine appeal against dismissal based on non-prosecution under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Arun Baitha
The State of Bihar
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
