SUNIL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Rathi, J. Heard Sri Apul Misra, the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) THIS revision is directed under Sec tion 397, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 15-3-99 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhansi in S. T. No. 70 of 1996 for offence under Sections 308, 323, 325, 452, 504 I. P. C.

(3.) IN this case, it is not denied that the trial is pending since more than two years. Copyof the order sheet filed shows that the plea of the accused was recorded on 19-7-96 after framing of the charge and the trial is pending since then. The order sheet and impugned order further show on one date only, the applicant sought adjournment and therefore, the delay is not attributable to "the conduct of the accused. Even the period of one adjournment granted at the instant of applicant is excluded more than two years have already passed since the plea of the applicant was recorded. The' delay of this period is not' attributable to the applicant. On the other hand the delay took place for two reasons. Firstly, there was no presiding officer and secondly, due to the strike of the advocates. There is no such exception to clause (i) for these reasons.