Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 426 of 2005 Revisionist :- Munnaf Ansari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,K.D.Tewari
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A for the State. Even though the cause list has been revised, Mr. K.D. Tewari, learned counsel representing opposite party No.2 is not present.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 4.1.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna in Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2004 (Nijam Uddin @ Chhotak Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the opposite party No.2 was declared as juvenile. A period of more than 14 years have rolled by since the date of passing of the order dated 4.1.2005. Trial of the opposite party No.2, as a juvenile, must have concluded in all probability. As such, the present revision has been rendered infructuous.
It is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Arshad