Sundari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2361 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 555 of 2009
 

 
Revisionist :- Sundari
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Surendra Pratap Singh,R.P. Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Aditya K. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

Neither counsel for the revisionist nor counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 are present to press this criminal revision.

Learned AGA for the State is present.

The application for condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision alongwith affidavit was filed on the ground that the deponent is the son of revisionist. The trial of both the cases i.e. Sessions Trial Nos.3 of 2007 and 372 of 2003 were conducted separately and both cases were not connected. The revisionist has no knowledge about the date fix for 21.07.2008 in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2007, in which impugned judgment and order was passed. When the parokar has contacted to another counsel who was conducing the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.1847 of 2008 was filed by the revisionist's husband, father-in-law and son, the counsel has demanded information with regard to the Sessions Trial No.3 of 2007 then the revisionist has enquired and applied for certified copy on 16.09.2009 and the same was made available on 05.10.2009 thereafter arranged to file the present revision without any delay.

Objection on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4 was filed on the ground that the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No.1, Raibareli passed the order in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2007 on 21.07.2008, whereby the respondents were acquitted and on the same day i.e. on 21.07.2008 in Sessions Trial No.372 of 2003, revisionist's husband, father-in-law and son were convicted, therefore, the revisionist has sufficient knowledge to file the revision but he has filed the same on 27.10.2009, which is after the delay of more than one year without any reasonable justification for the same.

It transpires from the record that in both the cases i.e. Sessions Trial Nos.3 of 2007 and 372 of 2003 orders were passed on the same day i.e. on 21.07.2008 and no sufficient reason for delay in filing the present revision was explained, therefore, in the circumstances, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No.1, Raibareli in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2007, under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Nasirabad, District Raibareli by which the accused persons/opposite parties no.2 to 4 convicted, suffers no irregularity, illegality or miscarriage of justice, therefore, the same is liable to be confirmed, as none present today to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the present revision.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision is hereby rejected as well as the revision is also dismissed.

Let a copy of this order alongwith lower court record, if any, be sent to the trial court concerned, forthwith, for necessary information and compliance.

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

Order Date :- 23.1.2023

Zafar