Chandra Kant Gopalka vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 8774 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Chandra Kant Gopalka vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 September, 2024

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Cr. Rev. No. 1364 of 2016

                   Chandra Kant Gopalka, son of Shri Shyam Sunder Gopalka, M/s
                   Dhanbad Finance Pvt. Ltd; resident of Kanke Road, P.O. - Kanke,
                   P.S. Gonda, District - Ranchi           ...     ...     Petitioner
                                          Versus
                1. The State of Jharkhand
                2. Mukhtar Ahmad @ Mukhatar Ahmad, son of late Sultan Ahmad,
                   resident of Vill. Noora, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District -
                   Hazaribagh                   ...       ...      Opposite Parties
                                          ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, APP

---

12/03.09.2024 This criminal revision has been filed on 06.10.2016 against the judgement dated 27.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner - VII, Ranchi, in Cr. Appeal No.85 of 2015 whereby the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.460 of 2007 has been set aside.

2. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the revision has been filed against the acquittal order passed by the appellate court. He submits that this revision is not maintainable.

3. At this, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this revision with a liberty to take appropriate steps as per law.

4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the prayer made.

5. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as not withdrawn.

6. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to take appropriate steps as per law.

7. Office is directed to provide the certified copies of the orders passed by the learned courts which have been enclosed with the revision petition upon being replaced by 'certified to be true copy' by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Let the records be sent back to the court concerned.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav