Badulla And Another vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 15062 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Badulla And Another vs State Of U.P. on 1 May, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78300
 
Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3063 of 2004
 

 
Revisionist :- Badulla And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- V.S. Rajput
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. 4 of 2024

1. This Court has passed following order on 18.10.2022 -:

?1. None appeared to press this revision even in revised call. In the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by order and judgment dated 20.09.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur Jyoti-Ba-Phuley Nagar in Case No. 118 of 2022 (State v. Badullah and others) and judgment and order dated 08.07.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2003, under Section 498-A, 323, 324, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District Jyoti-Ba-Phuley Nagar convicting the revisionist Badulla under Section 498A, 324, I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act and sentenced him two years simple imprisonment under Section 498A and one year simple imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C. and six months simple imprisonment under Section 3/4 D.P. Act and imposing fine of Rs. 2,000/- and convicting and sentencing the appellant Pyare under Sections 498A for two year simple imprisonment, under Section 506 I.P.C. for 6 months simple imprisonment and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act for 6 months simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 2000/-.

3. Having gone through the record, I do not find any manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.

4. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

5. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.?

2. Thereafter, revisionists have filed a recall application, however, same was dismissed on 25.08.2023 by following order -:

?Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Recall/Restoration Application No.2 of 2023

The revisionist by way of this recall/restoration application has sought recall of order dated 18.10.2022 passed in criminal revision, however, since it has been passed on merit, therefore, there is bar to review or recall this order under Section 362 Cr.P.C.

Therefore, these applications are accordingly, dismissed.?

3. Meanwhile, revisionists have approached Supreme Court by challenging order dated 18.10.2022 without disclosing that subsequently a recall/restoration application was already rejected. Supreme Court has passed following order on 04.12.2023 -:

?Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the High Court for appropriate remedies.

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for.?

4. Thereafter, present application has been filed.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, since this Court has already dismissed first recall application and there is no provision to file recall application again as well as it was not brought into notice of Supreme Court that recall application was already rejected, therefore, this Court has become functus-officio to pass any order.

6. Accordingly, recall application is rejected.

Order Date :- 1.5.2024

N. Sinha