The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed against convictions under Section 120-B, 420, 466, and 486 IPC. The court found no illegality due to the lapse of time and the absence of representation by the revisionists.
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. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 152 of 1991 Revisionist :- Preetam Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,A P Srivastava,Onkar Singh
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the revisionists. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.1990 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Meeut dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1990, preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.07.1990 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat, convicting and sentencing the revisionists under Section 120-B, 420, 466, 486 I.P.C. with a maximum punishment of two years rigorous imprisonment.
Learned A.G.A. submits that the present revision is of the year, 1991 and it appears that due to efflux of time the revisionists and their 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.
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the appellate court as well as by the court below and also perused the record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.A. Further no one appeared on behalf of revisionists to assist the Court pointing out any illegality or infirmity in both the judgments and orders passed by the courts below.
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 A.G.A. 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.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for its onwards transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance who will proceed further in the matter.
Let the lower court record, if any, be returned back to the court concerned.
The file is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 4.3.2022 Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.04.04 17:43:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision is maintainable given the efflux of time and lack of appearance by the revisionists.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
