Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 213 of 2018
Revisionist :- Maya Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018.
It appears that initially the judgment of acquittal was recorded by the court of the Magistrate. It was a complaint case. Under the statutory scheme of law, no appeal could have been filed in the court of sessions. It was only the High Court where the appeal could have been filed after obtaining leave in that regard by the complainant. The proceedings that took place in the court of sessions were illegal and anomalous in nature and in any view of the matter even that appeal was dismissed. Now, the revision has been filed with delay by the complainant. In the aforesaid background of facts, where the complainant instead of adopting the legal procedure went in a wrong court adopting a wrong procedure and then got an adverse order, there is no justification now to entertain this revision in such circumstances as the same will result in multiplying of illegality that has already been committed. In such circumstances, the delay condonation application does not need any favourable considerations and the same stands rejected as such.
Ref: Criminal Revision Defective No. 213 of 2018.
It goes without saying that the revision can not be entertained under the law as originally the judgment of acquittal was recorded by the court of the Magistrate against which if the complainant felt aggrieved he should have come up in appeal before the High Court after seeking leave but he filed an appeal before the court of sessions, which was illegal process. Even that appeal has been dismissed by the court of sessions. In the aforesaid background, since the delay condonation application has already been rejected, there is no justification to entertain this revision and the same stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 CPP/-