Pratap Singh Revisionist v. State Of Uttarakhand S

Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral).

In criminal case no. 95 of 2008 (State v. Surendra Singh) under Section 26 of the Forest Act and under Section 379 IPC, learned Magistrate refused to release the wood in favour of accused vide order dated 29.01.2002 Feeling aggrieved declining to release the wood in favour of the accused, criminal revision was filed before Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi being criminal revision no. 4 of 2002. Revision, so filed, was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 16.08.2003 and case property i.e wood was released in favour of the accused/revisionist, herein, in his SUPURDGARI.

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, criminal revision no. 125 of 2003 was preferred by the State before this Court.

During the pendency of the criminal revision no. 125 of 2003 before this Court, present revisionist was acquitted by the learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2010 and no appeal was filed challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 25.06.2010 and on 15.07.2011, criminal revision no. 125 of 2003 sought and permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 15.07.2011 Order dated 15.07.2011 passed by this Court reads as under:

“Sri G.S Sandhu, learned GA is present for the State/revisionist.

Sri S.K Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Swapnil Bisht, Advocate is present for respondent.

Learned GA made a statement in the open court that he wants to withdraw this revision because trial has been concluded in favour of respondent Pratap Singh, that has been attained finality, so this revision is allowed to be withdrawn.

Hence, this revision is dismissed as withdrawn. Stay order, if any, stands vacated.”

Perusal of the order dated 15.07.2011 would reveal that statement was made by learned Government Advocate to the effect that order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate attained finality, therefore, revision against the order of learned Sessions Judge releasing the wood would serve no purpose. However, after withdrawal of revision, State Government preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge with an application seeking condonation of delay, delay was condoned vide order dated 25.08.2012 Feeling aggrieved accused has preferred this revision.

The ground taken in the application seeking condonation of delay was that counsel appearing for the Forest Department could not inform about the judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate and failed to supply the copy of same within time.

This contention of the State Government, on the face of it, seems to be totally incorrect, in view of the fact that statement was made by the Government Advocate before this Court on 15.07.2011 that judgment of acquittal attained finality because no appeal was filed. In view of the above, delay ought not to have been condoned, therefore, revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 25.08.2012 is hereby set aside.