Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Prashant Pachauri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Prashant Pachauri vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 28, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040815

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prashant Pachauri

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

1 m.cr.c.no.208/2013 m.cr.c no.208/2013 28.01.2013 petitioners by shri sumit raghuwanshi, advocate. respondent/state by shri sameer chile, government advocate. this petition is preferred under section 482 cr.p.c against order dated 20/11/2012 passed by iiird additional sessions judge, bhopal in criminal revision no.585/2012 dismissing revision for want of appearance of the petitioners.in view of the fact that absence of the petitioners and their counsel was due to negligence of junior counsel who could not note the correct date of hearing in the diary, and further in view of the fact that not learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that by all means he will ensure appearance of the parties and counsel in the court of revision for presentation of his case. with a view to ensure opportunity of hearing to the parties in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 20/11/2012 passed by iiird additional sessions judge, bhopal in criminal revision no.585/2012 is set aside. in view of the aforesaid in the interest of justice, it is directed that criminal revision no.585/2012 be restored at the stage of 20/11/2012. not the petitioners along with counsel shall remain present in the court of revision on 26th february, 2013 for further hearing of the revision. learned revisional court shall either hear the matter on the same date or fix a suitable date for further 2 m.cr.c.no.208/2013 hearing according to law. certified copy as per rule. (tarun kumar kaushal) judge tarun

Full Judgment

1 M.Cr.C.No.208/2013 M.Cr.C No.208/2013 28.01.2013 Petitioners by Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate.

Respondent/State by Shri Sameer Chile, Government Advocate.

This petition is preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 20/11/2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.585/2012 dismissing revision for want of appearance of the petitioneRs.In view of the fact that absence of the petitioners and their counsel was due to negligence of junior counsel who could not note the correct date of hearing in the diary, and further in view of the fact that not learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that by all means he will ensure appearance of the parties and counsel in the court of revision for presentation of his case.

With a view to ensure opportunity of hearing to the parties in the interest of justice, impugned order dated 20/11/2012 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.585/2012 is set aside.

In view of the aforesaid in the interest of justice, it is directed that Criminal Revision no.585/2012 be restored at the stage of 20/11/2012.

not the petitioners along with counsel shall remain present in the court of revision on 26th February, 2013 for further hearing of the revision.

Learned Revisional Court shall either hear the matter on the same date or fix a suitable date for further 2 M.Cr.C.No.208/2013 hearing according to law.

Certified copy as per rule.

(Tarun Kumar Kaushal) Judge tarun

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial