(1.) THIS misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner-Garib Ram (hereinafter referred to as added accused petitioner) for recalling the order dated 16. 1. 2002 passed by this Court in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 by which after allowing the application dated 30. 3. 2000 filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the prosecution, added accused petitioner was ordered to face trial for the offence under Sections 148, 302/149 (or 302), 326/149 (or 326), 325/149, 323/149 and 307/149 IPC alongwith other accused persons and added accused petitioner was summoned through bailable warrant of Rs. 10,000/ -.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the added accused petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
(3.) SO far as the factual position is concerned, the same is not controverted on the following facts :- (1) That in S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000, there was a report by the office that added accused petitioner was served with the notice, but actually he was not served with the notice of that revision petition and he was actually served with the notice of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000. (2) That this Court proceeded further taking into consideration that the added accused petitioner was served with the notice of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000. (3) That added accused petitioner was actually served with the notice S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000 and for giving appearance in that revision petition, a Vakalatnama was filed on his behalf on 17. 10. 2000. (4) That since S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 283/2000 was decided earlier on 25. 7. 2000, therefore, that Vakalatnama was not tagged with any file. (5) That the conclusion of the above discussion is that actually added accused petitioner was not served with the notice of S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 282/2000 in which the judgment dated 16. 1. 2002 was passed.