Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 294 (RAJ)

Samniya v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay occasioned in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned. The remaining defects are over-ruled. The revision petition be registered. 4. The instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.1.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, Head Quarter Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 152/2009, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction for the offence under Section 31 read with Section 25(B)(A) of the Indian Arms Act by order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar has been rejected for non prosecution. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in jail in another case and, therefore, he could not appear to plead his appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, Head Quarter Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagarh. Learned counsel whilst placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh & Others v. State of U.P., reported in 1996 Cri LJ 3491 submits that as the appeal filed by the petitioner has wrongly been rejected for non prosecution, the judgment of the appellate court is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner have been decided by the appellate court in absentia and the same should have been decided on merits. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned. 8. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been decided ex parte and has dismissed for non prosecution, the order passed by the learned appellate court is not in accordance with law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh (supra). 9. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 5.1.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, Head Quarter Suratgarh, Distt. Sri Ganganagar is hereby quashed.The matter is remanded back to the learned appellate court to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******