^ €) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0. Ll 3?- /2004 SMT' KAKULI DUTTA, WIFE OF SHRK^IJAN DUTTA, RESIDENT OF KOSANALA, BHILAI, POLICE STATION SUPELA, BHILAI, DISTRICT DURG [C.G.] 1. ^IJAN DUTTA, SON OF SHRI v^IMLENDRA DUTTA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 2. SMT. SOMU MUKHERJEE, WIFE OF SHRI TANMAY MUKHERJEE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. BOTH RESIDENTS OF HOUSE N0. MIG. 1/952, HUDCO BHILAI DISTRICT DURG 3. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT DURG. APPLICANT Vs rb,2^ 44'f OL ^0/ FJ|(.(I »n..... ,.. ...^. .^..(..K.+-/*— bvSh-. ..'H<<<^°-(-^--teL A,'"<1 rt C cste .J) •^ts^) NON-APPLICANT8 PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 XI-HC-78 *il*lWl Sh*l)tb 3^ •<||<|ICT<|, (?Tn«'is,Ricii^y ^.•.^''...y.'?.^/... 3ii^<>i laen ('i,ctt^°«<d') 3n^r?iTl<-fi«h (raT3II^?Tsti1 .M.^ E)i ^nwEffig'sn^T 20.07.2006 Annlicant-Smt. Kakuli nuttai] Non-apnlicant No.3 bv Sliri Heard on admission- This Criminal Revision is 17.6.2004 delivered hy the Special Diire in Criminal Case No-398/200.1 applicants No.1 & 1 under Section and the sentence of rigorous impri Rs.2000/- each awarded bv the Jud Criminal CaseNo. 136/2001 videjud Having heard the riva1 suhmi1 revisioner has in her statement befor a11egations against the Tion-applicant dowrv'. Her testimonv contained al1e Kajal who died duringthe trial on 27 leamed appellate Coilrt rightly se' applicants No.1 & 2 under Section acquittedtiiem. No such illegality or anv interference in exercise ofrevisk dated 17.06.2004 is seen. TTiis revision being devoid ofi ty Ms. Madhu Modi- Advocate. Rfcvindra Agrawal. P.T,. <))i<<fci41-t iit«liTfffe'<fl<Rit^R ^ari^irgn^r impn|ionment Jud'cial judEment lirected against the judgment dated Judge & Additional Sessinns Judge, reversing the conviction ofthe non- + ofthe Dowrv Prohibition Act 1961 for one year and a fine of Magistrate First C1ass, Durg in :dated 8.9.2003. |sions, T have perused the record. The h the leamed tria1 Court not made anv k No.1 & 2 reearding the demand for gations only against her mother-m-law 5.2002. Tn this view ofthe matter, the t aside the conviction of the non- 4 ofthe Dowrv Prohihition Act and mamfest error oflaw as wouldjustifv ^nal jurisdiction in the impugned order herit is dismissed in limine. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge