IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2011
Shyam Narayan Singh son of Late Mahangu Singh, Resident of
Rasen, P.S. Rajpur, Distt. Buxar, ........ Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Bihar ........ Opposite Party.
----------------------------------
For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Miss. Sudha Chandra, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, A.P.P.
———————————–
4. 04.11.2011 I.A. No. 2133 of 2011 has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay in
filing this Cr. Revision application.
It has been submitted that although the Cr.
Appeal was dismissed for default on 30.6.2010 but the
petitioner could come to know about dismissal of the Appeal
on 28.8.2011 when the Police came to him and arrested. The
delay in filing this Cr. Revision application is condoned.
The I.A. No. 2133 of 2001 stands allowed.
The accused petitioner has preferred this
Revision application against the Judgment and order dated
30.06.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Cum
F.T.C. II, Buxar, by which Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2007 has been
dismissed for default.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had filed Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2007 against
the Judgment and order dated 17.2.2007 passed by the
learned Judicial Magisrate, 1st Class, Buxar, in G.R. No. 1277
of 2001, Trial No. 207 of 2007. The petitioner has engaged the
2
Lawyer but during pendency of the Appeal, he left the practice
as a result of which the petitioner could not come to know this
fact and due to non-appearance of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Cr. Appeal was dismissed for default. He has
submitted that the Appeal has been filed on good ground and
the case could not have been dismissed for default at least
and the learned Appellate Court should have appointed
Amicus Curiae. He has placed reliance on a decision in the
case of Md. Shakoor Ali Vrs. State of Assam reported in
2011(2), P.L.J.R. S.C. 67.
The learned counsel for the State could not
controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing his
prayer.
After hearing the learned counsel of both the
parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that
the impugned order is not fit to be sustained.
The impugned order is set aside and the Cr.
Appeal No. 15 of 2007 is remanded to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Buxar, for disposal in accordance
with law.
It is submitted that the petitioner has been
arrested on 22.8.2011 and since then he has been in custody.
The petitioner above named, will be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Buxar or his
3
successor in connection with G.R. Case No. 1277 of 2001,
T.R. No. 207 of 2007.
In the result, this Revision Application stands
allowed.
( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
S.Ali