Allahabad High Court
Zulfikar vs State Of U.P. on 22 September, 2025
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:169778
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1254 of 2013
Zulfikar
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Praneet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State.
3. Perused the records of the present revision and the trial court records.
4. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Baghpat dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2011, arising out of judgment and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 891/2008, State Vs. Zulfikar, convicting the revisionist under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further 01 month additional imprisonment.
5. The revisionist was convicted and sentenced vide judgement and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Case No. 891 of 2008, State vs. Zulfikar for offence under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further 01 month additional imprisonment against which he preferred a criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2011, Zulfikar vs. State, which was dismissed vide the judgement and order dated 1.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Baghpat affirming the judgement and order of the trial court and taking the accused in custody. The accused/revisionist then moved an application for interim bail on the same day on which vide order dated 1.4.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Baghpat, he was released on interim bail for a period of one month. Subsequently the revisionist surrendered on 17.5.2013 after filing of the revision before this Court and filed an application for surrender informing the court that he has filed a revision on which he was directed to be taken into custody and was sent to jail, copy of the surrender application and the order passed therein are filed as annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 20.5.2013. A report was called by this Court from the C.J.M. concerned since no one had appeared in the matter on 03.11.2023 regarding period undergone by the revisionist on which C.J.M., Baghpat vide his report dated 01.12.2023 reported that the revisionist was taken into custody on 17.5.2013 and was sent to jail after which he was released from jail after serving out the entire sentence awarded to him on 18.10.2013 and his depositing the entire amount of fine as imposed on him. The report of the C.J.M., Baghpat dated 01.12.2023 is on the record. Further a report dated 24.11.2023 of Jailer, District Jail, Meerut is also on the record which states that the accused convict Zulfikar was lodged in jail on 17.5.2013 who after serving out his entire sentence and depositing of the entire amount of fine, was released from jail on 18.10.2013. Thus the fact goes to show that the revisionist has served out the entire sentence awarded to him by the trial court and has deposited the amount of fine as imposed upon him by the trial court which stands duly upheld by the appellate court.
6. The trial court records have been received which are tagged with the present revision.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist submits that although the matter relates to conviction but since the revisionist has already undergone the entire sentence as awarded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court and has also deposited the fine as imposed on him, the present revision be dismissed as not pressed.
8. Records of the present revision go to show that till date the revision has not been admitted.
9. Since there is a request made by learned Amicus Curiae for the revisionist to dismiss the said revision as not pressed, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
10. Office to communicate this order along with the trial court records to the court concerned/District and Sessions Judge concerned for information and necessary follow-up actions forthwith.
(Samit Gopal,J.) September 22, 2025 Naresh