STATE Vs. RAVECHI DAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel Mr. R.K. Charan, who had filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the sole respondent, submits on instructions that the respondent has expired about two years back. The learned counsel Mr. Charan also informs that the fact of demise of the respondent has been duly taken note of in the pending criminal case in the Court of the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur.

(2.) THOUGH the learned Government Counsel Mr. I.S. Pareek appearing for the appellants submits that the fact about demise of the respondent has been stated in this matter for the first time and seeks to complete his instructions but we find no reason to doubt the statement made by the learned counsel, who had been appearing for the respondent. When this statement is taken into account with reference to the subject matter of this litigation, in our view, this appeal abates and cannot be proceeded further.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court, in the first place, considered this appeal on 13.01.2006 and posed the question if the respondent was responsible for continuance of the criminal case. It was given out before the Court on 05.04.2006 that the trial of the criminal case was held up on account of stay order passed by this Court in a Revision Petition preferred by the respondent against framing of charges and thus, the respondent was responsible for delay in conclusion of the trial and not the appellants. While taking note of the submissions so made, this appeal was admitted for hearing and the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed. Such a position has hitherto continued.