PARMESHWAR DEEN PATEL Vs. SNEHLATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. PC, for re-hearing of the revision petition on the ground that on 18-11-2002 the case was listed before another Bench, but on the same day, it was transferred to another Bench for hearing, this fact could not come to the notice of the applicant's Counsel so the Counsel could not appear before another Bench where the matter was relisted for hearing. The case was heard in the absence of the Counsel for the applicant and the revision was dismissed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant, himself was Counsel in the aforesaid case. This fact is supported by an affidavit of Shri J. L. Soni, Counsel, who has supported the contents of the application in which it is specifically mentioned that the fact of transfer of the case from one Bench to another Bench could not come to the notice of the Counsel.

(3.) ON notice of this application respondent appeared and contended that the rehearing of the case will amount to review of the previous order which is not permissible under the law. The order passed by this Court can not be reviewed under Section 482, Cr. PC. Both the Counsel have relied on Apex Court judgment in Hart Singh Man v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors. , AIR 2001 SC 43. Apart from this the learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied on the Apex Court judgment in B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. , (2003) 4 SCC 675, Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narayan Singh and Ors. v. State of M. P. , 1989 MPLJ 298, Single Bench judgments of this Court in Gulam Ahmed v. Haji Maulana Moham-mad Zahoor, 1997 (2) MPLJ 185 and in Yesu and Anr. v. State of M. P. , 2001 (4) M. P. H. T. 199 = 2001 (3) MPLJ 302 and contended that in the interest of justice the matter may be heard bi-party by recalling the order dated 18-11-2002.