SB: HON'BLB SHRI DHIKBNDRl v. State
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
SB: HON'BLB SHRI DHIKBNDRl lJ. -,.:.;J APPLiCAHT Rohidi 30 vei F.s. <JashTi <Sf -^/I^.u.iA^. s, Sfo. Bodhan. Ram., aged about - iT'a f^?.a<st?1- y.'^riav? R/o- R?»tmTrFlTs> lansu. yagicna, Uistt.- ^ansabel, - |.r (C.G.) A ^->.-u.£».¥ ^ -L^;i^,.*^i-i-£^-^.AC.»y -ii^ u, SON-APFLlCANT VS. State P.R. K, pt ClinatUsgarti, tTt^F* FTor1')p ttn'oiigfi -y.H.u., OS-12-2007 yiin. HaurabJi Uangi, Atlvoc|a Advodate tor Uie appUcaat. ytin u.K.. Bemval, uy. Adv. UeneraJl tor Uie State. Hearcl on aclniissioa. tSy Uiis peUUon under ye<| ;tion 482 of tlie Cr.P.C., the applicaiit T( ;N lias rmpugnecl Uie orcter ot leam^cl Kevision M0.44/2UU7, wliereDy agamst e ortter ot t&e leameai Sicssions Juclge, Korba, passea ui Ur. t-tie rcvision prelerred Dy tlie appiicant Juclicial Magistrate f'u'st ciass, KorOa rejectuig liis application lor 'onnecUon witti (Jnin.m.ai (Jase N| yitenin custoay ol catUe >.&H/'^UU7, nas been reiectecL seizecl ui LeaiTLecl counsel tor Uie afl tliat Uie applicant is t&e ownei) troia tlie accusect persons name) Me tUTUier suDnuts Uiat tne livti Ipiicant subiuits tliat Uiere is 110 clispute ot Uie catUe, w&icti nave Deeu seizect ' Cliunnulal, Budlirain a HuKli ynigti. ;sUgatmg Agency is uot taemg proper ;rsely attect Uie nealUi ot catUe and Uie :ll;i cai-e ol ms catUe wnicll inay advf appticaat niay sutter loss ui casff e ttie cattle ctied. on accoiuit ot coia or oUier problems. 1 WB^tT T SOTRBT, —FS/59—8/2007 —30.000. 3:5? •<l]<)l<r><<, ®Tn+f'lfi, lq<7>l'My *)l*<rtl *MI*"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""W^ 200 sn^r 'fss (4«if^«i<(ti) SD^I.^iT Ri-fi'k wr diwci 'apiw wiiw^iteoffi^'i q»<ll<!'1<tll *1)*1<l[^f f€^ ^^1"( ^sTRiTSn^i -2- ,.,Atte.r gouig ttu-ougtl Ul( (Jourts Delow and considenqg unpugnecl orflers passea Dy boUi me fbie niatter is under fh.e ifact ftiat investiganon an.cl Uie appucanc clays atter me seizure ot catuq, |n tor uitenm custody was mecl aliaost ^& Uiis (Jourt is ol Uie consiclerecl opmaon tliat Dolli me courts below tiav^ uot committecl aay lUegality, mtu-mity or junsdicUonal en-or ui passuij uitei'terence uucter Secuon 4(5^1 In Uie result, t&e petiuoj is nereby aisnussect ana it directed to expedite the trial. t&e unpugned oiTlers, wlucfl. warrant oftlie Cr.P.C. Deuig aevoicl ot substaiice is uable to De lisiaissed. However, tlie mal (Joiu-t Sd/- Dhirendra Mish-a Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.