Surendra Singh vs Lal Bihari And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 289 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2290 of 2003
 
Revisionist :- Surendra Singh
 
Opposite Party :- Lal Bihari And Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
 
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 08.07.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.3, District Piliphit in Session Trial No. 472 of 2001 (State Vs. Javer Singh and two others) under Section 302 I.P.C. and Sessions Trial No. 474 of 2001 (State Vs. Lal Bihari) under Section 25 Arms Act and Sessions Trial No. 475 of 2001 (State Vs. Suresh) under Section 25 Arms Act acquitting the opposite parties from the charges levelled against them.

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 order passed by the court below, therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.

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

In view of the above, after having gone through the judgment and order under challenge, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same need no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order under challenge, and further there appears force in the argument of the 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