Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 73 of 2000 Revisionist :- Ram Paras Madheshiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- H.P. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Case has been called in the revised list. Neither any request has been made nor any one present on behalf of revisionist. Learned A.G.A. is present.
The delay in filing of present criminal revision is condoned.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.1999 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi and the judgment of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North East Railway, Varanasi awarded in Suit No.1614 of 1990 (State Vs. Ram Paras Madheshiya), under Section 3 of Railway Protection Act, by which the revisionist has been held guilty of 2 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. The revision has been filed beyond prescribed period of limitation and there is delay of few days.
The prosecution case is that the revisionist is involved in the theft of the railway property, which is an offence under Section 3 of Railway Property Unlawful Possession Act and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North East Railway, Varanasi vide its judgment dated 30.9.1997, two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-. Against that order the revisionist has preferred an appeal before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi and the Additional Judge has affirmed the judgment dated 30.9.1997 vide its judgment dated 22.10.1999.
Against both the orders, the present criminal revision has been preferred in the year 2000, but neither any interim order has been passed nor bail has been granted to the revisionist. The punishment is of only for the period of two years. The appeal is of the year 1999, the imprisonment of the period of two years, it must have been undergone, so now it is not necessary to call for the lower court record in the matter.
From a perusal of the record, it appears that due to efflux of time, the present revision has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial court concerned which may proceed in accordance with law, if any further action is required.
It is made clear that it is open for the revisionist to move appropriate application before this Court within three months from today, if the matter survives.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Anil K. Sharma