UMA SHANKER JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for recalling the order dated 7.5.2001 passed by me, whereby Criminal Revision No. 54 of 1999 was dismissed and direction was issued to the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously preferably within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

(2.) SOME of the relevant facts, concerning the revision application filed by the petitioner, may be 30. briefly stated as under : The petitioner filed a revision application against the order dated 23.11.98 passed by the Judl. Magistrate, Begusarai in G.R. No. 2849/95 (T.R. No. 655/98), whereby he rejected the petition filed by the petitioner to discharge him under section 47 (A) of the Excise Act. Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioner preferred this revision application before 35. this court on 3.2.99 which was admitted by order dated 18.5.99 and further proceedings in the case was stayed. The case was fixed for hearing but the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner remained absent on three dates and the hearing was adjourned at the request of another lawyer, a friend of the advocate on record who prayed to adjourn the case on the ground that the advocate has gone to Delhi in connection with the treatment of his cousin. 5. On 9.4.2001 similar prayer was made and order was passed to list the case after two weeks, The case was not listed for hearing after two weeks and on 7.5.2001 it came up for hearing. Again similar prayer was made by the friend of the counsel engaged in the case which was not allowed and the counsel appearing for the State was heard. The order passed by the (earned Magistrate was perused by me and since no infirmity was found in his order 10. requiring any interference by this court, the revision application was dismissed, as indicated above.

(3.) IT may be stated at the outset that the statement made in the instant application to the effect that 20. the revision application was dismissed not on merit is not correct because the order dated 7.5.2001 passed by me indicates that f had perused the order passed by the Magistrate and did not find any infirmity in his order, so the revision application was dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accepts that by mistake wrong statement have been made in the instant application and, as a matter of fact the revision application was dismissed on consideration of the merit of the 25. case.