KRISHNA RAO PALNE Vs. PRAMILA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 27-4-1974 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi, in a case under Section 488, Cr. P. C. By this order he had rejected the application for setting aside his earlier order dated 26-3-1974 restoring the case under Section 488, Cr. P. C. which had been dismissed in default of appearance of Pramila Bai at whose instance the proceedings had been initiated.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to restore the proceedings which had already been dismissed in default on 25-3-1974 and the earlier order dated 26-3-1974 passed by the Magistrate was without jurisdiction. The revision should have been primarily filed against the order dated 26-3-1974 and not against the order dated 27-4-1974. In the prayer no doubt it has been prayed that the orders dated 27-4-1974 and 267-1974 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi, be set aside. Learned Counsel states that there is a typing error and that 267-1974 has been wrongly typed instead of 26-3-1974.

(3.) THE case has a chequered history. The application was filed under Section 488, Cr. P. C. in 1965. The matter was taken up to the High Court in reference which was decided on 7-4-1969. The High Court had remanded the case with certain directions. It appears that the case was dismissed in default of appearance on 25-3-1974 as the petitioner and her counsel were not present at the time the case was called out. The order shows that even the present revisionist was also not present. An application for restoration was moved on that very day on the ground that the petitioner had gone to call her counsel and had returned after 15 minutes when the case was called out and was dismissed in default. The learned Magistrate, therefore, ordered restoration on 26-3-1974.