Dismissed

Joodu @ Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023CRLAD/748/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a one-month-and-nine-day delay in filing a criminal appeal due to the appellant's financial hardship and illiteracy. However, the appeal was subsequently dismissed as infructuous because the underlying criminal case number had already been decided by the trial court, rendering the matter moot.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal allowed; criminal appeal dismissed as infructuous.

Joodu @ Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:44128

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 748 of 2009

¶4

Appellant :- Joodu @ Suresh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.G. Singh,Anuj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

(C.M.A No. 30732 of 2009: Application for condonation of delay)

¶7

Matter is taken up. None appeared on behalf of the appellant/applicant to press this application for condonation of delay. Learned A.G.A for the State is present.

¶8

The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. It is supported by an affidavit.

¶9

The cause shown for the condonation of delay is the poor financial condition of the appellant and the depononent being an illiterate lady also was not aware of the limitation, it is further stated that the delay is not intentional. Thus it is prayed that the delay of one month and nine days may be condoned.

¶10

Since learned A.G.A. has no objection if delay in filing the appeal is condoned and cause shown by the appellant in filing the appeal beyond time appears to be satisfactory, therefore, this Court condone the delay in filing the present appeal.

¶11

(Criminal Appeal)

¶12

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A is taken on record.

¶13

The present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C read with Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children ) Act, 2000 has been moved by the appellant against the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC V Faizabad, in Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2008 under Section 363, 366, 376 IPC Police Station Haiderganj District Faizabad whereby the application of the appellant for declaring him to be juvenile was rejected.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the application of the appellant for declaring him to be juvenile was rejected as forged documents regarding age of the appellant was produced in the court concerned. Learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the aforesaid application also directed for registration of case against P.W-2 Devendra Kumar Sharma under Section 344 Cr.P.C for issuing forged certificate in favour of the appellant.

¶15

Learned A.G.A has filed counter affidavit today wherein it has been stated that the aforesaid case crime number has already been decided by the learned trial court by order dated 28.02.2009 and the appellant has been convicted under Section

¶16

376, 366 IPC.

¶17

Considering the fact that the aforesaid case crime number has already been decided the present appeal has become infructuous.

¶18

Hence, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Nadeem

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Joodu @ Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joodu @ Suresh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 12 Others

Buddha @ Buddha Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Jugnu and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Jiyalal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jang Bahadur Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another