Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Subir Kumar Das vs State Represented By The Inspector Of ... on 11 March, 2015

Bench: J. Chelameswar, Pinaki Chandra Ghose

         CHAMBER MATTER                                               SECTION IIA

                                S U P R E M E C O U R T O F     I N D I A
                                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                          R.P.(Crl.) No. 97/2015 In SLP(Crl) No. 3688/2011

         SUBIR KUMAR DAS                                             Petitioner(s)

                                                 VERSUS

         STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
         SPE/CBI/ACB,CHENNAI                                         Respondent(s)

         (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing review petition and office
         report)

         Date : 11/03/2015 This petition was circulated today.

         CORAM :
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

                                     By Circulation

                           UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
                                              O R D E R

The review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits in terms of the signed order.

(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Mansukhani Date: 2015.03.12 16:25:50 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO(s). 97 OF 2015 IN SLP(CRL.) NO(s). 3688 OF 2011 SUBIR KUMAR DAS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPE/CBI/ACB, CHENNAI Respondent(s) O R D E R There is a delay of 227 days in filing the present review petition. The explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is neither satisfactory nor reasonable. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected.

Even otherwise we have gone through the review petition and the connected records. We do not find any merit therein. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed both on the ground of delay and merit.

......................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) ......................J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) NEW DELHI MARCH 11, 2015.