ORDER
Daniels, J.
1. I have the honour to report for the information of the Hon’ble High Court that a criminal appeal on behalf of four persons: Mewa Ram, Khiali Ram, Sobha Ram and Chunni Lal, was presented in this Court on 12th June 1925 through a mukhtar along with an application for bail. As I had been permitted by the Hon’ble High Court to avail of the first half of the vacation, the application for bail, together with the appeal, was sent to the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, who was to receive and pass orders on urgent criminal applications of this Judgeship during that period. The papers reached Bareilly on the 13th June, but the postman delivered the envelope containing them to the Subordinate Judge on. 6th July 1925 when the Courts re-opened. The Sessions and Subordinate Judge, Bareilly, sent the papers to me on 7th and I received them on the 8th July. On 16th June four appeals on behalf of the very same four persons were received through jail. Through mistake of my office it was not brought to my notice that an appeal through a mukhtar on behalf of the very same persons was presented on 12th June and was sent to Bareilly with an application for bail. After the expiry of the usual period of one week, which is allowed to enable an accused to engage a pleader to support his jail appeal, I took up the jail appeals on 27th of June for disposal, and after perusing the judgment and going through the record rejected them summarily. If an appeal through a mukhtar had been presented after the disposal of the jail appeals, then according to the ruling of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Piggott the subsequent appeal would have been rejected. But in this case an appeal through a mukhtar was presented before the jail appeals were received, heard and decided, and it was through the mistake of the office that the institution of the appeal through mukhtar was not brought to my notice when I decided the jail appeals. Under Section 421(1) of the Criminal P.C. the appeal presented by the mukhtar cannot be disposed of without hearing him.
2. I, therefore, beg to suggest that, if the Hon’ble Court thinks fit, my order rejecting the jail appeals summarily be set aside and I may be permitted to hear the appeal presented by the mukhtar, or any other order, which the Hon’ble Court thinks fit may be passed.
3. The clerk of the office, who is at fault, is being punished and the postal authorities are being asked to make enquiry into the long delay made in delivery of the envelope to the addressee at Bareilly.
JUDGMENT
4. In this case the Sessions Judge of Budaun has reported that, while jail appeals on behalf of four persons, Mewa Ram, Khiali Ram, Sobha Ram and Chunni Lal were pending, a petition of appeal on behalf of some persons was filed through a mukhtar. The Sessions Judge was away on vacation at the time, and the latter petition of appeal, which was accompanied by an application for bail, was placed before the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Bareilly who was receiving urgent criminal applications relating to the Budaun Judgeship at that time. Owing to some delay in the post the learned Sessions Judge decided and summarily rejected the jail appeals in ignorance that an appeal from a mukhtar in which counsel was to be heard had been presented. The learned Judge asks if he has power to sot aside his own order dismissing the appeals. He has no such power, but this Court has power to do so, and in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court I hereby set aside the orders rejecting the appeals of the four persons mentioned above, and direct the learned Judge to re-hear the appeals after giving them an opportunity of appearing by counsel.