NAAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) IN the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner failed to appear on the date fixed as a result of which, the liberty to lead evidence was closed by the trial Court vide order dated 9-3-2006. An application to recall the aforesaid order was moved, and the same was allowed on the cost of Rs. 100/- vide order dated 29-3-2006. No cost was deposited. Another application was moved to deposit the cost on 24-4-2006 and the same was dismissed on 2-5-2006. This order was challenged in a criminal revision No. 190 of 2006. The revisional Court dismissed the revision on 10-1-2007. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that one single opportunity may be given to him to deposit cost and he undertakes not to be absent on a single date in future.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Petition disposed of. .