Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2876 Gua
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2024
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010003702024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRL.A(J)/41/2024
AC/2007 SRI R SARVANAN
S/O-LATE RAMA SWAMY THEVAR, R/O-VILLAGE-ACHILAPURAM,
DISTRICT-BIRUDHUNAGAR, TAMILNADU
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. B SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
01.05.2024 [M. Choudhury, J.]
Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the accused-appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam. This criminal appeal from jail is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2015, Page No.# 2/2
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang at Kajalgaon in Sessions Case no. 144[Basu]/2015. By the said Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2015, the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 [six] months. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
The case records of Sessions Case no. 144[Basu]/2015 be called for from the learned trial court.
Issue notice, returnable in 4 [four] weeks.
As Ms. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1, State of Assam, issuance of formal notice to the respondent no. 1 is dispensed with.
It is noticed that an interlocutory application, I.A. [Crl.] no. 59/2024 was preferred for seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant criminal appeal and this Court observed that the respondent no. 2 was not a necessary party for the interlocutory application as well as the connected criminal appeal and accordingly, by its order dated 20.03.2024, the name of the respondent no. 2 was ordered to be struck off. In view of the same, there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent no. 2- informant and as such, the name of the respondent no. 2 is to be struck off from the array of the respondents.
List the case after 4 [four] weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!