SAU RABU ISMAIL RATHAN Vs. RAJU JAYSINGH BHISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner absent. None present for her. Respondent No. 1 absent. None present for him. Shri Shringarpure, additional Public Prosecutor, present for the state of Maharashtra, who happens to be protecting the interest of the prosecution.

(2.) THE present petitioner assails the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court in the matter of Sessions Case No. 65 of 1995 wherein the learned Additional Sessions judge, Baramati acquitted the respondent no. 1 of the charges levelled against him for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I. P. C.

(3.) IN view of provisions of Section 403, it is not necessary for the revisional Court to hear the parties in person or through their lawyers unless it is necessary to do so in the ends of justice. In this case, it is not necessary to wait for the petitioner or her lawyer. Firstly because the petition is pertaining to the year 1997 and secondly, keeping in view the merit of her revisionetition qua the judgment and order passed by the trial Court which has been assailed by this revision petition.