Patna High CourtCR. REV./981/2019allowed

Brij Nandan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.981 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-785 Year-1997 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== Brij Nandan Pandey Son Of Late Sheo Nath Pandey Resident Of Village - Bandoo, P.S.- Nauhatta, Dist.- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar 2.

Rang Nath Pandey Son Of Late Shri Pawan Kumar Pandey Resident Of Village - Bandu, P.S.- Nauhatta, Dist.- Rohtas. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Tripathy For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-04-2024 The sole contention of the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No. 99 of 2008 is that the date of judgment was fixed on 08.05.2019 but the same was pronounced on 07.05.2019.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private respondents i.e. the accused.

3. Learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the judgment has been pronounced on 08.05.2019 and not on 07.05.2019. The judgment was pronounced in presence of the petitioner which is apparent from an application

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.981 of 2019(7) dt.30-04-2024 2/2 filed by the petitioner.

4. He further argued that there is a typographical error in the date of judgment. Though the Judgment was passed on 08.05.2019, but the date of judgment has been shown as 07.05.2019.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party does not inspire confidence.

6. This application is allowed and the judgment 07.05.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No. 99 of 2008 is set aside.

7. The matter is remitted back to the court below with direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is allowed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U