Patna High Court - Orders
Mukhtar Paswan & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 18 January, 2017
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Sharan Singh, Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.1122 of 2016
======================================================
1. Mukhtar Paswan Son of Brahmdeo Prasad
2. Brahmdeo Prasad son of Briksha Roy
3. Phulmati Devi wife of Brahmdeo Prasad
4. Jamadar Prasad S/o Brahmdeo Prasad All residents of village - Math
Lohiyar, P.S. - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Prabha Vati Devi wife of Mokhtar Prasad resident of village - Math
Lohiyar, P.S. - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tej Pratap Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI
SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 18-01-2017It is submitted on behalf of petitioner No.1 that his name is "Mukhtar Paswan" and in the trial Court judgment his name has wrongly been mentioned as "Mukhtar Prasad." As regards petitioner No.3, it is his contention that her correct name is "Phuljhari Devi," which has been rightly mentioned in the trial Court judgment but in the appellate Court judgment her name has been wrongly typed as "Phulmati Devi." Learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be correct in his submission that there are typographical errors to the said extent.
2. Let the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter to this Court be ignored.
2
3. The petitioners have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years each by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, East Champaran, Motihari by judgment and order dated 24.05.2014 passed in Trial No. 124 of 2014 with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each. Their appeal against the said order came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 05.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2014/16/2015. The aforesaid judgments and orders are being assailed in the present criminal revision application.
4. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of Opposite party No.2, whereas petitioner Nos. 2,3 and 4 are father, mother and younger brother of petitioner No.1.
5. After rejection of their bail, they are in custody since 21.10.2016. Though the matter has been listed under the heading "orders (on office notes)", which has been taken up for admission.
6. Admit.
7. Issue notice to Opposite party No.2 under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process for which requisites etc must be filed within one week, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.
3
8. During the pendency of the revision application, all petitioners above-named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Motihari, East Champaran in T.R. No. 124 of 2014 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1829 of 2002.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/-
U