INDRA NARAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition under section 482 CrPC are that in pursuance of proceedings under section 133 CrPC the SDM Kunda of District Pratapgarh issued a. notice under section 133 CrPC against the petitioner. This notice is dated 3-8-1983 which was served on the petitioner on 7-9-1983. THE petitioner filed objections beyond time allowed by the court. THE SDM Kunda by his order dated .22-10-1983 rejected the objections of the petitioner making the order absolute. THE notice required the petitioner to file objections within ten days. THE petitioner did not file the objections within ten days and this is why the SDM vide his order dated 22-10-1983 rejected his objections. THEreafter the petitioner preferred a revision (No. 178 of 1983) to the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, which was dismissed on 6-1-1986.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the SDM ought to have considered his objection and ought to have questioned him when he was present in the court, regarding the matter, and that there was no justification for the SDM to reject his objections which were on record. THE revisional court observed that since objections were not filed within time allowed, the SDM was justified in rejecting the same. THE revisional court further observed that the objections were filed after the impugned order was passed by the SDM.