Indal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 11006 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11006 ALL
Judgement Date : 23 August, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Indal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. on 23 August, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 226 of 2008
 

 
Revisionist :- Indal
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Farroq Ahmad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Raghunath Prasad
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in revised call. However, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned AGA and Sri Raghunath Prasad, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 are present.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 29.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in S.T. No.52 of 2005, under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC, Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi, whereby the trial court had acquitted respondent nos.2 and 3 of the offences under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 504 IPC.

3. The present revision has been filed with delay of five months and eight days.

4. From perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the delay has not been properly explained and only a vague ground has been taken in filing the revision with delay of about six months.

5. Apart from it, the incident allegedly took place in the year 2002. The judgment and order of the trial court is dated 29.8.2007. This revision was filed in the year 2008 and thus, it has remained pending for the last 14 years and even the delay has not yet been condoned.

6. The trail court after considering the prosecution case, evidence lead by the parties and the submissions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and defence, had acquitted the accused-respondent nos.2 and 3 for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial court has not committed any error of law, facts or evidence for which it requires any interference with the finding of facts recorded by the trial court in exercise of its revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

7. In view thereof, the present revision has no force. It is accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches as well as on merit.

Order Date :- 23.8.2022

Rao/-