RAM NIRANJAN Vs. K.C. MAHESHWARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India seeks recalling of the order dated 21.4.97 made by this Bench in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 542/95 under section 482 Crimial P.C. By the said order, this Bench had quashed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, dated 1.9.89, as upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar vide his order dated 26.4.95 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 35/92.

(2.) The recall of the order of this Court dated 21.4.97 has been prayed mainly on the ground that when the main petition was taken up for hearing, the name of the counsel of complainant-applicant was not indicated in the cause list and therefore, the applicant could not have the opportunity of having addressed his arguments to the Bench. In this behalf, the full bench decision of this Court in the case of Habu Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1987 RLR page 1 has been referred to. It has also been mentioned in the application that no second revision of the same order was permissible as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepti @ R.R Rai Vs. Akhil Rai, JT 1995(7) SC 175 . Along with the application, an extract of the daily cause list dated 19.3.97 in respect of Court No. 14, which was presided over by me on that day, was also filed.

(3.) I find that notice of date, time and place of hearing of the petition had been duly given in the cause list to the learned counsel for the parties and that Shri R.S. Rathore, Advocate had been mentioned as counsel for the present applicant, in the cause title, the name of Shri R.S. Rathore, Advocate had been mentioned along with Shri G.S. Rathore and Santosh Kaushik as appearing on behalf of the present applicant in the said case. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh and others Vs. State of U.R 1996(4) SCC 720 , the notice of hearing of the revision petition under section 386 C.P.C. may be given to the counsel of the parties and not necessarily to the party. Since the date, time and place of hearing of the petition filed against the present applicant had been duly notified through the cause list circulated for that date the first found of this application does not exist.