Judgments

Review application was not competent as new or important matter or evidence had been disclosed

Accused was not tried for the same offence. Trial of the accused was not barred u/s 403 Cr.P.C or on principle of double jeopardy.

Mere possession of forged document was not an offence unless the same was used fraudulently

Procedural requirement had not been followed by the trial Court as provided u/s 32 or 33 of CNS, Act, 1997

Accused had not produced any evidence to prove that the bags were loaded by the co-accused

Trial Court despite coming to conclusion that private partition has already been effected, directed authorities to partition property

Findings on question of fact and law recorded by court of compe- tent jurisdiction could not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction

Circumstantial evidence did not lead to the conclusion that each chain of incident was linked with to prove the guilt

Verification of petition and annexure was required to be done under Order VI Rule-15 C.P.C

In case of decision of existing of relationship of landlord and tenant, rent deposited in Court would be refunded to tenant

Vicarious liability of the accused would be determined at the trial after recording evidence

Compromise. Nothing on record to impede the process of compromise and punish the accuse u/s 311 P.P.C.