This order dismisses both a delay condonation application and the criminal revision for want of prosecution since the revisionist failed to appear and press the application.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 340 of 2001
Revisionist :- Nafis Ahmad And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Yusuf Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Case called out in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. Learned A.G.A. representing the opposite party no.1 is present.
The revisionist has taken steps to engage another counsel.
From the record, the Court finds that the present criminal revision was filed beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the present criminal revision was filed alongwith the memo of revision.
As no one appears on behalf of the applicant/revisionist to press the delay condonation application, the same is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.
Since the delay condonation application has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present criminal revision is also dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 YK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision was filed beyond the period of limitation.
Whether the application to condone the delay for want of prosecution should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nafis Ahmad
State Of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
