Hasna Begum v. State

O.J.C. No. 10546 of 2001

23.11.2016 None appears for the petitioner when the case is called. Previously, on 09.09.2016 al
so none had appeared for the petitioner and the case was adjourned. On next two dates i.e. on
16.09.2016 and 9.11.2016, since learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time, the case wa
s adjourned.

 Today, when the case is called for hearing, none appears for the petitioner. Perused
the record. It is apparent from the records that the husband of the petitioner was facing tria
l for alleged commission of offences under Section 395 of the I.P.C. in the court of the learn
ed Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Addl. C.J.M. (Special), Cuttack in S.T. No.639 of 2000. The petiti
oner has prayed that her husband is suffering from various diseases and he needs to be treated
. Therefore, she has filed this writ application on 13.08.2001.

 In the meantime, sixteen years has elapsed. So this Court is of the opinion that caus
e of action does not survive as the trial of the case must have been completed in the meantime
. Even if the husband of the petitioner is punished for ten years imprisonment, then also, he
must have been released from the jail in the year 2010.

 In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition has b
ecome infructuous and is dismissed as such.

 S.K.Mishra, J.

2