The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision challenging an order of acquittal. Finding no illegality or good ground for interference, and noting the revisionist's absence and apparent loss of interest due to efflux of time, the Court declined to disturb the lower court's decision.
Revision dismissed accordingly.
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. - 301 of 2002
Revisionist :- Raj Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Brijesh Sahai
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Called in revise. None responds for the revisionist. Learned AGA for the State is present.
This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned order of acquittal dated 5.1.2002 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.-III, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 784 of 1995 (State of U.P. vs. Bijendra and others), under Sections 307 read with section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Pilkhuwa, District Ghaziabad.
Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned AGA states that no government appeal has been filed against the impugned order.
From perusal of impugned order and material available on record, I see no illegality or irregularity committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order, even the revisionist is not able to make a fit case as to justify interference of this Court. I do not even find any good ground to interfere in the same. No interference is warranted.
Moreover, it appears that trial was commenced in the year, 1995 in the lower court, either cause of action or any interest to the revisionist no more survives or by efflux of time revisionist lost interest in the matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and probably for this reasons, none is interested to have decided this matter on merit and that is why counsel for the revisionist is absent.
Revision is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 1.5.2019 Manoj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision against the order of acquittal warrants interference by this Court.
Raj Singh Tomar
State Of U.P.
Rajendra Kumar-IV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
