SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2009 passed by IInd Addl. Session Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2008 thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Case Crime No. 201 of 1992 (State v. Channu and Ors.).

(2.) On 20.3.2009 learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State were heard and then the order was passed releasing the revisionist on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and realization of half of the fine amount was stayed till further orders. Thereafter two applications were moved by Smt. Shanti Devi supported with affidavits alleging therein that the revisionist may be directed to implead her as respondent in the revision and the revisionist after his conviction has filed revision but he has obtained order without surrendering in the court concerned and the revisionist has not observed Provision of Chapter XVIII Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and by concealment of the material fact played fraud on the court and has obtained order dated 20.3.2009.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist/opposite party has filed counter affidavit alleging therein that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. to implead Smt. Shanti Devi as party in the revision and the case instituted against the revisionist was State case and the State has been made party. It is also mentioned that there is no Provision in the Cr.P.C. to recall the order passed by the court contrary to Section 362 Cr.P.C. which creates bar to recall, alter or review any order passed by the court.