Criminal Revision

By | September 24, 2016
criminal revision

Last Updated :

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

In the matter of an application U/Sec. 439, Cr. P.C.

Rajasekhara Rao, residing at Nacharam, Hyderabad                         …….. Petitioner/ Accused

Vs.

 The State of A.P.                                                                                               …. Respondent

In the matter of a Revision from the order of conviction passed U/Sec 324, I.P.C. on 30.01.2010 by the learned presidency magistrate sixth court, Hyderabad.

To His lordship the Chief Justice and the Puisne Judge of the said honourable court.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWITH

 

 

In the matter of an application U/sec. 439, Cr. P.C. Rajasekhar Rao, residing at Nacharam, Hyderabad                                                                             ………. Petitioner / Accused

Vs.

The state of A.P.                                                                     …………. Respondent

In the matter of a Revision from the order of conviction passed U/sec 324, I.P.C. on 30.01.2010 by the learned presidency magistrate sixth Court, Hyderabad.

To

His lordship the Chief Justice and the … judge of the said honourable Court.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

That the learned president Magistrate convicted the applicant and one Mukesh Rao under the mentioned section and sentenced him to undergo Vigorous imprisonment for a period of four month and to pay a five of Rs.100 or in default to undergo further R.I. for 15 days.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, your petitioner begs to more the honourable court in its Revisional Jurisdiction on the following.

Grounds

  1. That the order of the lower court is against law.
  2. That the learned presidency magistrate erect in believing the complaints who were interested witness.
  3. That the learned presidency magistrate was wrong in dis-believing the two respectable and independent witnesses examined on behalf of the defence.
  4. The learned magistrate has erred in not complying with the mandatory provisions of the Cr. P.C. whereby an opportunity to explain away the circumstances appearing against them was refused.
  5. The learned magistrate has not maintained a full record of the evidence and hence certain admissions by the prosecution given in their cross examination are not available.

Prayer

The petitioner therefore prays that your lordship may be graciously pleased to call for the record of the case and issue a rule upon the presidency.

Magistrate, sixth court and upon the opposite party to show cause why the aforesaid, order complained of should not be vacated and to release the petitioner on bail pending the disposal of this revision applications and your lordships may be pleased to pass such other order or orders as the circumstances of the case demand.

And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.

Author: Mayank Shekhar

Mayank is a student at Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.