Single judge in criminal revision noted the absence of the revisionist counsel and lack of stay order. Found no illegality; held the cause of action may have expired by efflux of time. Dismissed the revision as infructuous without engaging the merits.
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. - 758 of 2000
Revisionist :- Ashutosh Misra Opposite Party :- A.C.J.M. Ii Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhai Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Javed Habib
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
interference is warranted.
Order Date :- 1.3.2019 Manoj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's rejection of conversion under Section 304-B IPC.
Whether the revision petition survives the efflux of time and loss of interest.
Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality or irregularity warranting revision.
A.C.J.M. II
Rajendra Kumar IV J
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
