The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the rejection of an application for the release of a seized vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, finding no illegality and noting the revisionist had lost interest due to the lapse of time.
Revision dismissed; liberty granted to recall the order if the cause of action survives.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1118 of 1996
Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- P.N. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Manoj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the lower court's order rejecting the release of the seized vehicle making interference warranted.
Whether the revisionist has lost interest in the matter by efflux of time rendering the application infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar
State Of U.P.
Rajendra Kumar-IV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
