In this criminal revision, the single judge dismissed the delay condonation application for want of prosecution due to absence of the revisionist despite noted delay.
Rejection of delay condonation application; dismissal of criminal revision as time barred.
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. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 440 of 2008
Revisionist :- Shiv Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- K.S. Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Ref: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 267200 of 2008
Case called out in the revised list.
No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this delay condonation application filed along with criminal revision.
As per report of the stamp reporter, this criminal revision is beyond time by 513 days.
Accordingly, the delay condonation application is rejected for want of prosecution.
Since, the delay condonation application is rejected, therefore the present criminal revision also stands dismissed as time barred.
Order Date :- 12.10.2022 Sazia
Digitally signed by SAZIA AQUIL Date: 2022.10.13 10:42:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
whether the delay condonation application filed along with criminal revision should be allowed for want of prosecution.
whether the criminal revision can be allowed despite being beyond the time limit.
Mayank Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
