DEBI BUX SINGH Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A revision application was filed on behalf of the applicant on 3rd August 1949. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, an order was made that the record be sent for at the applicant's expense. When the case was listed again on 10th August 1949, it was discovered that the cost had not been paid. Counsel was also not present. I then examined with care the judgment of the Court and came to the conclusion that there was no force in the application and rejected it. Later on, an application was made on behalf of the applicant for the restoration of the revision application. That was rejected by me on 8th September 1949. Thereafter, a second revision application was filed on behalf of the applicant and that too was rejected by me on 19th September 1949.

(2.) A fresh application has now been presented praying that the revision application be restored. I have perused the affidavit which shows the circumstances in which counsel for the applicant had no information of the fact that the case had been listed for hearing on 10th August 1949, and was consequently unable to appear at the time when the case was called on for hearing.

(3.) Section 369, Criminal P. C. provides that: