No one appeared for the revisionist. An application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed for want of prosecution. The criminal revision was consequently dismissed.
Delay condonation application dismissed for want of prosecution; revision dismissed.
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. - 488 of 2004
Revisionist :- Virpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,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.
This criminal revision has been preferred beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, a delay condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, has also been filed. Since, no one is present to press this application, the delay condonation application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
As the delay condonation application has been rejected, the revision is also dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 17.7.2019 Vivek Kr.
Virpal
State Of U.P. And Ors.
Rajeev Misra
Tarun Agarwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
