RAMESWAR PRADHAN Vs. SURENDRA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) IN this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner ventilates his grievance relating to the disposal of Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2000 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur without hearing the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of the Lawyer's agitation, the advocate appearing for the petitioner could not appear in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepur on 22.1.2001 hence that Court "dismissed the revision being not moved." He thus prays that the lower revisional court be directed to hear and dispose of the revision in accordance with law.

(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and perusal of the certified copy of the relevant order-sheets in the said Criminal Revision this Court finds that on 14.11.2000 the revision application was filed by the petitioner on 15.11.2000 the revision was admitted and notice was issued and on 22.1.2001 the revision was dismissed for default of the petitioner. The aforesaid fact situation thus goes to indicate that the revision was dismissed for default after it was admitted for hearing. Learned Additional Sessions Judge being a senior officer in the lower judiciary is expected to remain alive to the legal provision that once a revision is admitted for consideration, it cannot be dismissed for default. If the parties do not appear to participate, then it is the duty of the revisional court to peruse the record, examine the points canvassed in the revision application, analyse the fact and law and the legal lacuna, if any, in the impugned order and to dispose of the revision by a speaking order. In this case, learned Additional Session Judge having failed to do so this Court finds that impugned order of dismissal due to default of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of the law. Thus, the order dated 22.1.2001 in the said revision is set aside and learned Additional Session Judge is directed to hear and dispose of the revision application in accordance with law.