RADHANPUR KHODADROD PANJARAPOLE SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1 State.

(2.) BY way of present Criminal Revision Application, the petitioner Radhanpur Khodadrod Panjarapole Sanstha("Panjarapole" for short) who was party respondent in the criminal proceedings before the learned Magistrate, was not heard by the Revisional Court and has passed the order in favour of the respondents.

(3.) MR . Virat Popat, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner Panjarapole submitted that the order impugned in the present petition is contrary to law and principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as the decision of this Court. He submitted that the petitionerPanjarapole was party respondent before the trial Court. The respondent accused/owner of the livestock has not joined the Paijarapole as party respondent in the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the respondent no.2 owner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan. He further submitted that even the respondent no.2 accused/owner has not joined as party in the proceedings, it was the duty of the Revisional Court to direct the revisionist to join Panjarapole as party respondent to hear it before passing any orders in the Revision Application. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on decisions of this Court rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 2037 of 2007 and Special Criminal Application No. 1184 of 2007 and allied matters wherein it has been held that Pajarapole is necessary party in the Revisional Court and if there is any order contrary to the principles laid down by the Court, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.