Smt. Pushpa Rani and another vs Shri Satish Kumar

S.C. Mittal, J.—Facts giving rise to this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that against the order of Shri S.R. Bansal, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa, the petitioners filed a revision petition u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, admitted the same to hearing. When it came up before him on 12th October, 1976, neither the petitioners nor their counsel was present. Hence, the revision petition was dismissed in default. On the same day, their Learned Counsel applied for the restoration of the same on the ground that he had gone to attend the proceedings before the Commissioner in Hissar and that intimation in this regard was given by the lawyer to the reader of the Additional Sessions Judge. When the lawyer returned at 11 a.m., he came to know that the revision petition has been dismissed in default. The application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that his attention was not drawn to any provision of law in support of its maintainability.

Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent. Despite service thereof on him, he has not appeared to contest it.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, erred in dismissing the revision petition in default. It having been admitted to hearing by him, the same could have been dismissed only on merits. Support is sought from a Single Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.N. Sharma and Others Vs. The State, This ruling being applicable to the facts of the case in hand. I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, for disposal according to law.