Vijayee And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 283 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 889 of 2003
 
Revisionist :- Vijayee And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Nath Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List has been revised.

None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.

Heard Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2002 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 1465 of 2000 Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs. Vijayee and others, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi convicting the revisionists under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also convicting them under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and directing the sentence to run concurrently and also against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Varanasai in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2002 Vijayee and others Vs. State of U.P. confirming the aforesaid judgmnet and order dated 15.05.2002 and sentencing each of them under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them for a period of six months under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and one year with fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to suffer one month simple imprisonment.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present revision is of the year, 2003 and it appears that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest to pursue this matter, and there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below, therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.

I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the appellate court as well as by the court below and also perused the record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General. Further no one appeared on behalf of revisionist to assist the Court pointing out any illegality or infirmity in both the judgments and orders passed by the courts below.

In view of the above, after having gone through both the judgments and orders under challenge, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same need no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and orders under challenge, and further there appears force in the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest in pursuing the matter, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for its onwards transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance who will proceed further in the matter.

The file is consigned to record.

Let the lower Court record, if any, be returned back to the concerned Court.

Order Date :- 1.4.2022

Arvind