LAWS(HPH)-1995-9-12

ROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On September 25, 1995
ROOP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Criminal Revision under section 397 read with sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed on 5 -11 -1990 by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal No. 16 -S/10 dismissing the appeal in default resulting in confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan, H. P. on 28 -5 -1990. The revisionists/accused (hereinafter to be called "Revisionists") were convicted by the trial Court under sections 325/452/34,1 P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in case of default in payment of fine, they were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months The revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and to direct him to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and fixed the same for hearing for 17 -9 -1990 after calling the record of the lower court. The revisionists were represented by counsel on 7 -8 -1990 and also on 17 -9 -1990. On 5 -11 -1990, none appeared for the revisionists and the case was called for number of times. The impugned order is reproduced below: - "5 -11 -1990: Present: Shri H.S. Rana, P. P. for the respondent. None for the appellant. Case called out a number of times. Neither the appellants nor their counsel is present. Present appeal is accordingly dismissed in default. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in open Court Sd/ - 5 -11 -1990. R.L. Khurana, Sessions Judge, Solan,"

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been filed on the ground that the revisionists have been condemned unheard resulting in miscarriage of justice. It is further urged that the revisionisms could not be made to suffer for negligence of their counsel. The impugned order has also been assailed on the ground that the appeal could not be dismissed in default.