Mithai Lal vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 863 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3874 of 2004
 
Revisionist :- Mithai Lal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Chaubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 27.08.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2004, preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.05.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 4883 of 1989, convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act with a punishment of six months rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the present revision is of the year, 2004 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 A.G.A. 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 A.G.A. 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.

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

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.

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

The file is consigned to record.

Order Date :- 8.4.2022 /Mustaqeem.