Criminal Revision U/S 435/439-A Cr.P.C
Purpose: To challenge an order of the functionary, wherein, the judicial functionary allowed needless physical remand of the suspect during a criminal case.
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, D.I. KHAN
In the matter of:
(Name, parentage, and address of the petitioner) …Petitioner
Versus
The State
…. Respondent
That the transient facts resulting in the moment revision petition area unit that the petitioner is that the litigator of the above-said FIR, that the petitioner got lodged against the appointive suspect. when registration of the above-said FIR, the suspect was understood by the involved police officers on 02.11.2020. Copy of FIR is Annexed hereby for kind poring over of this Hon’ble court which can kindly be read as an integral part of this petition.
That on 04.12.2020, the suspect was created before the court of learned Judicial functionary, provided just one day remand vide order dated 04.12.2020.
(Copy of order dated 04.12.2020 is annexed herewith)
That the petitioner seeks indulgence against the order
dated 04.12.2020 elapsed learned Judicial functionary, put down on the subsequent amongst others: -
G R O U N D
That the impugned order dated 04.12.2020 is against the law and facts of the case.
That whereas passing the impugned order dated 04.12.2020, the learned court didn't hassle to look at the seriousness of the matter and misappropriation of an enormous quantity of the petitioner, thence the impugned order is vulnerable to be put aside.
That the investigation officer produced the suspect persons before the learned court seeks the physical remand for 5 days and rather than giving an equivalent, the learned court allowed just one day remand, that is even otherwise not sufficient for the recovery of the large quantity plunder by the suspect in dishonorable suggests that and also the impugned order elapsed the learned court could be a divide of any legal justification, thence the impugned order is vulnerable to be changed.
That undeniably, the petitioner is litigator of the higher than same criminal case FIR registered with P.S Cantt, D.I. Khan, and whereas vacant poring over of the impugned order reflects that solely one-day physical remand was granted by the learned court, though the request of the I.O for the more physical remand of …….. days however the learned court rather than taking the thought the fabric offered on record in its true perspective passed within the impugned order mediation that isn't rectifiable within the eye of law.
That the allegation against the suspect is that they defalcate the large quantity of the litigator and conjointly created the false, forged, and flippant documents and dishonoring the cheque and keeping visible the peculiar facts and circumstances of the moment case couple with the higher than same allegations of misappropriation of the large quantity. The impugned order of the learned court is plagued by material irregularity and also the same is passed during a hasty matter while not affording the correct chance to the I.O to conclude his investigation in accordance with the law, thence the impugned order is vulnerable to be changed.
That the learned court didn't hassle to look at the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order during a careless manner, thence the impugned order isn't property within the eye of law and vulnerable to be put aside.
That the impugned order is that the results of non-reading and misinterpretation of fabric offered on the record and passed the impugned order during a hasty manner.
That whereas passing the impugned order, the learned court didn't exercise the jurisdictions that area unit therefore unconditional to that and exercised the jurisdiction that isn't unconditional to that, thence the impugned order isn't property within the eye of law and vulnerable to be put aside
That the impugned order could be a grave miscarriage of justice and if the impugned order remains within the field, then the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss.
That the impugned order relies on surmises and conjecture
That the learned court didn't hassle to look at the facts offered on record and passed the impugned order in routine away
That the learned counsel of the petitioner created a variety of precedents of apex courts of the country before the learned court in support of the petitioner’s version however the learned court didn't hassle even to contemplate an equivalent and passed the impugned order in a fanciful manner.
That the petitioner might kindly be allowed to debate alternative grounds at the time of arguments.
Certificate: -
Note:
1. to connect testimony in support of revision petition U/S 435/439 metal. P.C
2. to connect an application for suspension of the impugned order.
3. to connect necessary documents with the revision petition.
4. to connect Wakalatnama signed by the petitioner.
5. To file the revision petition in a particular period of time
0 Comments