Aatoori @ Hari Prasad vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 686 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 803 of 1992
 
Revisionist :- Aatoori @ Hari Prasad
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- R. Joshi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List has been revised.

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

Heard Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.05.1992 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Criminal Appeal No. 54/90 (Latoori Vs. State of U.P.) whereby he dismissed the appeal, confirmed the judgment and order dated 07.03.1990 recorded by the A.C.J.M. Vth Bareilly convicting the revisionist/appellant/applicant under Sections 332 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the present revision is of the year, 1992 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 :- 7.4.2022

Arvind