✦ Uttarakhand High Court · 01 Sep 2003

(Old No. 1207/1987) Molak Ram State & Anr. v. Revisionist

Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2001IRSHAD HUSSAIN

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

For the reasons mentioned above this revision is allowed

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondents. This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 5-5-1987 passed by Sessions Judge Tehri Garhwal, whereby the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant, but the case was remanded to the learned Magistrate with the direction to give an opportunity to the prosecution to prove service of notice U/s 307 of the Municipalities Act, 1916 on the revisionist. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the service of the notice was not proved by credible evidence and considering that the wrong-doer should not go un-punished for technical fault on the part of the prosecution, hence the case was directed to be remanded to the learned Magistrate for trial . It is not disputed that the notice U/s 307 of the Municipalities Act is a sine qua none before launching the prosecution against the wrong-doer for committing an offence U/s 185/307 of the Municipalities Act. When it was shown that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the service of the notice the consequence of the same was tht the prosecution could not have succeeded in establishing the allegation against the revisionist beyond doubt. In a situation like this the benefit should have been extended to the revisionist-accused and there was no justification to direct the remand and an opportunity to be given to the prosecution to prove the service of the notice. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be just and proper and therefore there are legal reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. For the reasons mentioned above this revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 5.5.1987 of the Sessions Judge Tehri Garhwal is set aside and the conviction of the revisionist as recorded by the learned Magistrate per judgment and order dated 30-8-1986 is hereby set-aside. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Dated 1-9-2003 ISB (Irshad Hussain, J.)

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: For the reasons mentioned above this revision is allowed

Which court decided this case, and when?

Uttarakhand High Court, on 01 Sep 2003. The bench was IRSHAD HUSSAIN.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Uttarakhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2001). ← Search more judgments