Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72922 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1329 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sumit Kumar @ Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Braham Vishal Nayak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. 1st, Hathras in S.T. No. 640 of 2021 ( State of U.P. Vs. Sumit Kumar @ Bablu) whereby, the additional charges were framed against the revisionist for the offences punishable under Sections 493 and 494 I.P.C. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has informed that the Sessions Trial No. 640 of 2021 ( State of U.P. Vs. Sumit Kumar @ Bablu) had already been concluded vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2025 whereby, the revisionist had been convicted and further vide order dated 11.4.2025, sentence had been awarded to him. He further submits that once the trial itself had been concluded and the revisionist had been convicted and sentenced, the present criminal revision has lost its relevance. 4. Sri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the instant criminal revision was filed by the revisionist while the trial was pending therefore, if the impugned order, on its face, is without jurisdiction, this criminal revision is very well maintainable and is liable to be decided by this Court on its own merits. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the Sessions Trial No. 640 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Sumit Kumar @ Bablu) had already been concluded and the revisionist had been convicted vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2025 and had been sentenced vide order dated 11.4.2025. 6. Once the trial had already been concluded, any order which was passed during pendency of the trial stands merged in the final judgment passed in the criminal trial therefore, the revisionist has only remedy to assail the order passed in criminal trial by filing an appeal before the appropriate court. 7. Once the trial itself had already been concluded, this Court is of the view that this criminal revision has lost its relevance. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed as having become infructuous. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad