High Court rejected the delay condonation application due to lack of satisfactory explanation and 711-day delay, consequently dismissing the criminal revision petition under Order 4 (implied).
Application for condonation of delay rejected; criminal revision rejected.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37952
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 173 of 2024
Revisionist :- Suneel Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
From the office report, it is evident that there is a delay of 711 days in filing the revision.
Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application shows that delay has not been satisfactory explained. The affidavit has been filed very casually.
The application for condonation of delay fails and is accordingly rejected .
Consequently, the revision is also rejected .
Order Date :- 16.5.2024 R.C.
Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of 711 days delay in filing criminal revision was justified.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
