Hanumant Narayan vs State Of U.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 160 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 417 of 2011
 

 
Revisionist :- Hanumant Narayan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- M.L. Syal,Shashi Kiran Arya
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

Heard Sri M.L. Syal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The notice could not be issued because the revisionist has not taken steps for service of notice on opposite party nos.2 to 6.

The instant revision has been filed on behalf of complainant-revisionist under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2010 (Sansarnath Dwivedi and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) setting aside the judgement and order of conviction dated 30.9.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.27, Barabanki, by which the accused Hari Shankar, Omkar Nath Dwivedi, Devi Shankar and Triyugi Narayan were acquitted from the charges of office punishable under Sections 494 read with sections 120B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and the accused-opposite party no.2 Sansarnath was convicted under Section 494 read with sections 120B, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and accused-opposite party no.3 was convicted under Section 494 I.P.C. The accused-opposite party no.2 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 494 read with 120B I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.2000/-; to undergo imprisonment for one year under Section 504 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/- and to undergo imprisonment for one year under Section 506 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/-. The accused-opposite party no.3 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 494 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.4000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month each. Feeling aggrieved by it, the accused-opposite party nos.2 & 3 have preferred appeal before the appellate court challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and that Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2010 (Sansarnath Dwivedi and another Vs. State of U.P.) was set-aside and they were acquitted from the charges vide judgment and order dated 14.6.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Barabanki. Against which the present revision has been preferred.

On 27.9.2011, notice was directed to be issued against the accused-opposite party no.2 to 6, but the revisionist has not taken steps.

It is provided in Chapter-XII Rule 4 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 that If the requisite process-fee or cost of issuing notice is not paid or the requisite notices are not supplied within the time prescribed in Rule 3 the case shall be listed for dismissal and shall be dismissed as against the persons who have not been served on account of the default unless on the case being called an application signed by the party or his Advocate or brief-holder together with the requisite process fee cost or notices, as the case may be, is presented to the Court or an application similarly singed discharging from the case the persons not served on account of the said default or withdrawing it as against them and the Court deems fit to grant it.

From the above provision it is abundantly clear that if the steps are not taken, the revision or appeal as the case may be, shall be dismissed in default.

Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed for non taking of steps.

Order Date :- 3.1.2023

Anil K. Sharma