ASHA RAM TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

(2.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2012, whereby he allowed respondent No. 2 opportunity of hearing? on the revision, which had been dismissed in the absence of respondent No. 2 and her counsel. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the order dated 11.04.2000 was passed on merits inasmuch as the learned Judge observed, 'there is no any material error or irregularity found in the impugned order. The order is well within the jurisdiction of the lower court. It is just and proper. It need not any interference as such, there is no force in this petitioner, which is liable to be dismissed.'

(3.) Learned Counsel argues that section 362 Cr.P.C. places a bar on the powers of the Criminal Court to recall its own order; there is no provision for restoration or review in the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the order under challenge is an illegality. In support of his arguments, learned counsel refers to case laws in the cases Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal and others 2009 8 LAWS(SC) 82 and Ram Sewak Rai vs. State of U.P. and others Criminal Revision No. 1002 of 2003 decided by learned Single Judge Bench of this Court on 23.07.2010; Ramesh vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Application No. 2749 of 2005 decided on 16.11.2007.