Dismissed¶12

Raghubeer v. State

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2022CRLR/1183/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1183 of 1991, Raghubeer v. State, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided 22.2.2022 by Shamim Ahmed, J. Conviction under Section 380 IPC and sentence of two years simple imprisonment by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rampur (Criminal Case No.380/90, dated 31.5.90) affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1990 by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur (dated 14.8.1991). Revision dismissed for non-prosecution/loss of interest due to efflux of time; no illegality or infirmity found in the judgments and orders of the courts below. Counsel: A.N. Srivastava for revisionist; Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

What did the court decide?

Having gone through both the judgments and orders under challenge, the Court concluded they need no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in them.

Raghubeer Vs State — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1183 of 1991

¶3

Revisionist :- Raghubeer Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- A.N. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.

¶7

Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-I for the State is present.

¶8

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.8.1991 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judg Rampur in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1990 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 31.5.90 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Rampur in Criminal Case No.380/90 convicting the appellant under Section 380 IPC an sentencing him for two years simple imprisonment.

¶9

Learned AGA submits that the present revision is of the year 1991 and it appears that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest to pursue this matter, and there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below, therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.

¶10

I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the appellate court as well as by the court below and have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned AGA. Further no one appeared on behalf of revisionist to assist the Court pointing out any illegality or infirmity in both the judgments and orders passed by the courts below.

¶11

In view of the above, after having gone through both the judgments and orders under challenge, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same need no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and orders under challenge, and further there appears force in the argument of the learned AGA that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest in pursuing the matter, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

¶13

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for its onward transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance who will proceed further in the matter.

¶14

The file is consigned to record.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.2.2022 SP

¶16

Digitally signed by SALIM PRAVEJ Date: 2022.03.05 11:18:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghubeer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubeer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin @ Sachin Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udit Tyagi(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sonia Chopra Vs Surendra Kumar Chopra

Ramesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Har Narain and Another Vs Padam Singh @ Punni and 2 Others