This court rejected a criminal revision application and an accompanying condonation of delay application. The court held that the excuse of new counsel failing to advise the revisionist did not justify a delay of over three years.
The application for condonation of delay and the criminal revision are 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. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46238
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 300 of 2019
Revisionist :- Umesh Alias Rajnu Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Gulam Mustafa,Amar Singh,Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocare,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Ravinder Kumar
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(Criminal Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay/I.A. No.29287/2019)
(i) Earlier an application seeking discharge was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 28.08.2014.
(ii) Challenging the said order the revisionist approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482/378/407 No.3801 of 2014 (Umesh @ Ranju Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and Anr.) and this application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10th March, 2015. Subsequent to the same, an application seeking restoration was also rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.07.2015.
(iii) Another application under Section 482/378/407 No.912 of 2019 (Umesh @ Ranju Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & another) was preferred by the revisionist challenging the order dated 17.10.2015 and after some arguments the counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said petition and taking note of the prayer sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court consigned the matter to record vide order dated 05.02.2019.
(iv) The first application seeking discharge was filed on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.").
(v) Subsequent application seeking discharge was filed by the present revisionist on the basis of report of the CBCID dated 14.09.2015.
"7. That it is stated that the Revisionist was not aware about the legal position as he knows that earlier Discharge Application has been rejected, so now Second Application cannot be challenged while his earlier Counsel had also not advised him regarding challenging the rejection of the discharge application."
(Order on the Memo of Revision)
Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected, therefore, the revision cannot survive and the same is rejected.
Order Date :- 7.8.2025 ML/-
Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reasons of new counsel not advising to challenge earlier rejection are sufficient to condone a delay of over three years in filing a criminal revision.
Whether the condonation of delay application filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Umesh Alias Rajnu Mishra
State Of U.P.
Saurabh Lavania
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
