IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2008 Mohammad Ali … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another. … Respondents None for the revisionist. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. December 30, 2010 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. On the last date i.e. on 4.10.2010 also, none was present on behalf of the revisionist. It is also evident from the report of the Registry that the revisionist did not even take steps for service of notice on the respondent no. 2 Sarvesh Kumar Saini. 2. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 57/2004, whereby the accused respondent Sarvesh Kumar Saini has been acquitted of charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The impugned judgment is well reasoned and evidence on record has been discussed therein. 3. I have perused the lower court record, which was summoned by this Court, and find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondent was not preferred by the State. 2 5. In the above circumstances, the criminal revision is hereby dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 30.12.2010 Prabodh