(1.) PETITIONER -Kishan Chand Arora filed Criminal Complaint No. 439 of 24.12.1997 against respondents under Sections 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dismissed the complaint by his order dated 24.9.1998. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner got the certified copy of the said order and filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Court, Chandigarh on 20.11.1998, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, without going into the merits of the revision petition, dismissed the same on 21.11.1998 by observing that the certified copy of the order of the learned Magistrate had not been produced along with the revision petition, that there was also no application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy and that even otherwise, he had no power to grant such an exemption. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh passed on 21.11.1998 and for directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh to consider the revision petition on merits.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that along with the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application (copy Annexure P-1) stating that the certified copy of the order which was obtained, could not be located due to the revocation of the office of the counsel, that the limitation for filing the revision was nearing expiry, that a photo copy of the certified copy has been annexed and, therefore, exemption from producing the certified copy of the order of the trial Court be granted. He also contends that the petitioner had also prayed that the petitioner may be granted time to place on record the certified copy of the order, but still the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh did not consider this application and had proceeded to dismiss the revision petition, as if no such application had been filed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the revision petition having been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Judge should have exempted the production of the certified copy at that time in view of the reasons given by the petitioner and inasmuch as Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. enabled the Sessions Court even to call for the records and examine the correctness of legality of the order passed by the trial Court.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.