YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON . Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. STF.CBI,MUMBAI .
EmailAppeal: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1728 OF 2007
Petitioner: YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON .
Respondent: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. STF.CBI,MUMBAI .
Judges: ANIL R. DAVE , , CHELAMESWAR , KURIAN JOSEPH
Date of Judgment: Apr 09, 2015
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO.474 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1728 OF 2007
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON … PETITIONER(S)
VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. STF.CBI,MUMBAI … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, at length. We have gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed and we have considered the arguments advanced on both sides. As requested, we have also gone through the judgment of the trial court, in order to appreciate the contention on conviction and sentence. We find that all the arguments advanced by the review petitioner have been considered in detail in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. Hence, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record or any other ground so as to warrant interference in exercise of our review jurisdiction.
1
The review petition is hence dismissed.
…………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
…………..J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]
…………..J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] New Delhi; 9th April, 2015.
2
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO.474 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1728 OF 2007
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON … PETITIONER(S)
VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. STF.CBI,MUMBAI … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, at length. We have gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed and we have considered the arguments advanced on both sides. As requested, we have also gone through the judgment of the trial court, in order to appreciate the contention on conviction and sentence. We find that all the arguments advanced by the review petitioner have been considered in detail in the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. Hence, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record or any other ground so as to warrant interference in exercise of our review jurisdiction.
1
The review petition is hence dismissed.
…………..J. [ANIL R. DAVE]
…………..J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]
…………..J. [KURIAN JOSEPH] New Delhi; 9th April, 2015.
2
