1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
3 All] Ramakant Dubey Vs. State of U.P. 1285 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION admitted handwriting. He himself has CRIMINAL- SIDE admitted that he has presumed that the DATED: LUCKNOW 05.09.2013 photo-stat letter is true photo-stat of the original letter. Thus, there is nothing on BEFORE record to show that the original letter THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI(II),J. was in the handwriting of the accused person. In the statement under Section Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2002 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has not admitted that he has sent the letter to the Regional Manager and Divisional Office. Ramakant Dubey ...Revisionist Versus Case Law discussed: State of U.P. ...Opp. Party 1996 Criminal Law Journal 3237; AIR 1977 SC 1091; AIR 2004 SC 3084; AIR 1979 SC 1414; Counsel for the Revisionist: AIR 2002 SC 3582; AIR 1969 Alld. 423; AIR Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, Sri V.P. Pandey 1978 SC 840; AIR 1978 SC 1091. Counsel for the Respondents: (Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Govt. Advocate, Sri Bireshwar Nath Tripathi (II), J.) Criminal Revision- against conviction- 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, offence under section 468, 471, 420 IPC- learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri readwith 511-allegations revisionist based upon forged letter alleged to be issued by Bireshwar Nath, learned counsel for P.M.O-tried to get promotion-conviction respondent. solely based upon statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.-as well as expert opinion who 2. This criminal revision has been admitted during cross examination that-he filed by RamaKant Dubey, son of Late Sri compared admitted hand writing with Ram Adhar Dubey, resident of Village- photo state copy of original letter presuming it to be original-held-both Courts Dhaskari, P.S.
[Show full text]