MADHU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was summoned as an accused under section 319 of Code of Criminal procedure vide order dated 12th March 2003 by the learned Special Judge, Delhi and thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner for recalling the aforesaid summoning order and said application has been dismissed by the learned special Judge, Delhi vide impugned order dated 1st October 2003.

(2.) NORMALLY, the matters are not disposed of in the absence of the party. But since this revision petition is of the year 2003, therefore, I am inclined to look into this matter and to see as to whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. For adopting such a course, I stand fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Dharam Pal and Others vs. State of UP (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 920) wherein it has been held as under:

(3.) WHEN an appeal can be heard and disposed of in the absence of the appellant and his counsel, then why not the revision petition can be decided on merits. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the stand of the petitioner of a witness being summoned as an accused for offence of abatement of an offence under section 7/12/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been negatived by holding that the application for recalling summoning order is not maintainable. However, liberty has been granted to the petitioner to make all submissions in her prayer for discharge when the matter is heard, on the point of charge.