JANARDAN SWARUP AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(2.) Oppugnanting the above arguments learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has contended that the so-called office order is not available on record; that the above order of the Court was filed by the revisionist in the appellate Court after about 2 months and the application of the revisionist under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was rejected on merits by the Court on 17.4.2013, against which the revisionist filed Application under Section 482 No. 14368 of 2013, which had been dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 26.4.2013. Learned counsel emphasised that the revisionist has concealed this fact in his revision, so inter alia on this ground alone the revision is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On perusal of the record as also the supplementary-affidavit filed by the revisionist today, I find that the contention of learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has force.