High Court declined to entertain a revision against an Order rejecting a vehicle release application filed nine years prior, holding no useful purpose would be served due to the delay.
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.
CRLREV No. 1250 OF 2010
By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner (accused) under section 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in his favour has been rejected and assailing that order, this revision being filed has not yet been admitted nor this court has passed any interim order.
It is submitted at the Bar that in this case the vehicle in question having been seized had been released in favour of the opposite party no.2 (who is the informant in the criminal case).
Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that now the vehicle is under the care and custody of the petitioner and he is running the same for all the period for nine years.
Considering the submission as above, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served at this distant point of time to examine the illegality and propriety of the order which had been passed nine years back in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
In that view of the matter, this Court being not inclined to entertain this revision feels proper to observe that the court in seisin of the case would take all such effective steps for conclusion of the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months hence.
The revision is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
……………………..
D. Dash, J.
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
