HALI SAHU Vs. KAHNEI MOHARANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of a petition for special leave under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant.

(2.) Since there was no appearance on 20-2-1989 when the matter was called for hearing on the question of grant of special leave, the petition for special leave was dismissed for default. This application has been filed to restore the petition by recalling the order alleging that Mr. S.D. Das, Advocate who was to make submission understood that High Court Bar Association had decided and resolved to pray to the Court for declaring the Court as closed due to lunar eclipse and was told that Courts had risen for the day and under that erroneous impression left the Court premises. As the dismissal was on account of such erroneous impression of the Advocate engaged, prayer has been made to restore the same.

(3.) Draft holidays for the year 1989 were approved by the Court after getting the views of the Bar Association. At that time no objection was made to the working day of the Court specially with regard to 20-2-1989. Under the President?s order it is stipulated that this Court shall have 210 working days. In case objection would have been raised before the working days were fixed, possibly another working day could have been found. It should have been appreciated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court has no jurisdiction to reduce the working days to loss than 210 days. Besides, on 20-2-1989 many lawyers appeared in the Court and made their submissions. There was no justification for Mr. Das to carry an impression to leave the Court premises specially when he had already come to make his submissions in the case. No resolution was also intimated to the Court before 10.30 a. m. when Courts began functioning. I am not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for absence of Mr. Das.