HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 180 of 1998 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. Nil of 1998 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 2. Cause shown for the delay is sufficient. 3. The delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. Order on Revision 4. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.2.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.37/94 confirming the judgment and order of conviction date 12.9.1994 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Ghaziabad, whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.5000/-. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that during the pendency of the present revision, the revisionist has already served out the substantive sentence awarded to him and, in fact, has remained in jail for a period longer than the sentence awarded to him. It is, thus, urged that nothing survives for adjudication in so far as the substantive sentence is concerned. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Jagdish, Kumar Parikshit, Rohit Nandan Shukla, Vinod Kumar Bhartiya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate Subhash .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned A.G.A. fairly does not dispute the factual position regarding the incarceration period undergone by the revisionist. 7. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record, it's observed that the revisionist has already served out more than the substantive sentence awarded to him. In such circumstances, the revision to that extent has been rendered infructuous. However, with regard to the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, particularly in absence of any perversity or manifest illegality in the findings recorded by the courts below. 8. In view of the sentence having been reduced to the period already undergone, no further detention of the revisionist is warranted. The revisionist be released forthwith from custody, if not wanted in any other case. 9. It is further directed that in view of the revisionist having undergone the substantive sentence, his bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, furnished during the pendency of the revision, are hereby discharged. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the present criminal revision stands disposed of. September 8, 2025 Anil K. Sharma CRLRD No. 180 of 1998 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad