Dismissed

Om Prakash Sharma and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2018CRLR/4041/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision against an order granting benefit of probation. The court held that since the one-year probation period had expired without a stay, the revision had become infructuous and lacked purpose, leading to its dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The revision petitions were dismissed as infructuous because the probation period had expired without a stay.

Om Prakash Sharma and Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4041 of 2003

¶3

Revisionist :- Om Prakash Sharma & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revisionist is absent.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 7, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148 giving benefit of Section 4 Offenders Probation Act for one year to accused Malkhan Singh, Om Prakash, Shiv Saran @ Guddu, Chandra Pal, Anil, Vipin and Ajay.

¶8

From the perusal of the record it shows that under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504 IPC, P.S. Bhamoara, District Bareilly in Case Crime No. 336 of 1993 vide judgment and order dated 24.02.2003 accused Om Prakash, Malkhan Singh, Shiv Saran @ Guddu and Chandra Pal, Anil, Vipin, Ajay were convicted and awarded sentence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 149 IPC for rigorous imprisonment of six months and under Sections 325 and 149 IPC simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/each and in default one month imprisonment.

¶9

Against the aforesaid conviction judgment and order the appeal was filed, as Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2003 and it has been decided on 06.12.2003 and appeal was allowed partly conviction of sentence awarded against the accused persons were set aside except under Sections 147, 148 IPC and under Sections 147 and 148 IPC the benefit of Section 4 of Probation Act was given for one year; he was released on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount.

¶10

From the perusal of the records it shows that the order was passed on 06.12.2003 and the benefit of Section 4 Probation Offenders Act was given for locking period of one year and that period has already been passed over. Hence this revision is infructuous. No purpose would be served to get pending this old revision. Hence the present revision is liable to be dismissed as infructuous.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no stay order hence one year locking period has been passed before in the year 2004 and after that period 13 years have already been passed. Hence there is no occasion to get this revision pending.

¶12

Accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.2.2018 A. Tripathi

Om Prakash Sharma and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Sharma and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Patel Vs State of U.P.

Satish Gond Vs State of U.P.

Kedar @ Kedar Nath Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Sonkar Vs State of U.P.