MATADIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of my order dated 30.9.1964 in Criminal Revision No. 1579 of 1963.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

(3.) In the affidavit filed along with the application, the only ground on which the review is sought is that the learned counsel was busy on the date fixed for the hearing of the revision in performing religious rites in Pitri Paksh and had sent a letter to one of his colleagues to mention this fact in Court but as his colleague could not be found out, the letter remained undelivered and no mention could be made in the Court and hence the revision was dismissed without any hearing. It is obvious that this can hardly be a ground for review of the order.