REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Om Prakash Santuka Appellant

V/S

CHAMPALAL SETHIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NARENDRANATH MOHANTY V. ANIRUDHANATH MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
KHAGENDRANATH NAIK V. NILA BHOL AND 2 ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDHISTIR @ JUJESTI SAHU AND SEVEN ORS. V. PADMALOCHAN SAHU [REFERRED TO]
LAKHIRAM PANSARI V. NARASINGH MISRA [REFERRED TO]
(STATE V. M. V. APPARAO [REFERRED TO]
JADUMANI DAS V. GOVIND BISWAL AND 7 ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DWIJENDRANATH DUTTA V. SIRLA JENA AND 4 ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SATRUGHNA PADHAN V. CHLINTAMANI TIWARI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NORA DEI V. DAMA NAIK AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BIRENDRA KISHORE SAHU [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. JAGATRAM SAHU [REFERRED TO]
NITYANANDA SAMAL VS. NARAPRASAD [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PATI VS. BADI GIGIRA [REFERRED TO]
NIDHI JENA VS. JALADHAR LENA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT , a monthly tenant in respect of a house in Cuttack town under the accused persons, is the appellant against an order of acquittal under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) ON the basis of the complaint dated 10 -4 -1981, cognisance was taken for offences under Sections. 323 and 504, I. P. C., and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial, They entered appearance on 22 5.1981 and were released on bail. The case was posted to 30 -6 -1981 for hearing. On 30 -6 -1981, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order :

(3.) IN appeal against acquittal whether after considering the merits or under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code, High Court can interfere only where miscarriage of justice has resulted on account of manifest error of law or fact. If the main ground on which the acquittal is based is reasonable and plausible and cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal.

Click here to view full judgment.

OM PRAKASH SANTUKA Vs. CHAMPALAL SETHIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address