KIRTI MARTIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Earlier on taking up the matter for hearing at early hours of the day Shri Lalit Pandey, Adv. appeared on behalf of the applicant and prayed to keep this matter as pass over saying that the arguing counsel, Shri Sharad Verma is busy before some other Bench of this court, on which it was kept as pass over. Pursuant to it, it is place before me after lunch session. Shri Sharad Verma, Adv. submits that applicant has taken away the brief from his office day before yesterday after obtaining NOC to engage other counsel and in such premises, he is not in a position to make the submission on merits of this petition. Such submission of Shri Verma is taken on record. Pursuant to aforesaid, Shri Verma is permitted to withdraw from this case.

(2.) The State's counsel submits that he is under receipt of the case diary.

(3.) Before beginning the arguments on other merits of the case, with the assistance of the case diary, the State's counsel has apprised me that in compliance of the order dated 13.12.2013, the genuineness of the alleged affidavit of the prosecutrix was verified and on such verification as per available report such affidavit was found to be taken from the prosecutrix by practicing fraud and giving her temptation that she would get money, which is paid by the State, in such types of cases to the prosecutrix of the community covered under the S.C, S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.