Mohd. Saleem vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 12003 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12003 ALL
Judgement Date : 31 August, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Saleem vs State Of U.P. on 31 August, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 299 of 2009
 
Revisionist :- Mohd. Saleem
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Indrajeet Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Nadeem Murtaza,Sanjay Kumar,Syed Aftab Ahmad
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. The revision, which pertains to the year 2009, called out. None appears on behalf of the revisionist to argue the revision, though S. Pandey, learned counsel for accused-respondents as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no.1-State, is present.

2. By way of this criminal revision under Section 397/401 CrPC, the revisionist has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Balrampur in Sessions Trial No.86 of 2006, arising out of Crime No.0162 of 2002 lodged at Police Station Sadullah Nagar, District Balrampur.

3. Vide the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge as acquitted accused-respondents, Musibat and Haqqul alias Asgar Ali of the charges levelled against them under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and accused-respondents, Chhannan Khan, Safullah and Samiullah of the charges levelled against them under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.

4. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 08.05.2002.

5. By means of the judgment and order in question, the learned trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, did not find any offence having been committed by the accused-respondents and, therefore, acquitted them of the charges levelled against them.

6. After hearing Mr. S. Pandey, learned counsel for accused-respondents, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no.1-State, and perusing the impugned judgment and order carefully, this Court does not find any error of law, fact or evidence, which requires any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.8.2022 MVS/-