This application was allowed, on July 2, 1957, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Tej Pal Singh, who had dismissed the appeal.
Sri Tripathi, who succeeded Sri Tej Pal Singh as Sessions Judge, and before whom the appeal was put up for re hearing, was of the opinion that the appellate Court had numberpower to review or restore an appeal which had been disposed of and that therefore the order of his predecessor dated July 2, 1957, was ultra vires and passed without jurisdiction.
145 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 19,1959, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
I have perused the judgment of the learned Magistrate and seen the record.
The relevant portion of his order is The appellants have been absent, and their learned companynsel has also number appeared to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellants.
P. Sinha and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
The appellants were companyvicted by the Magistrate, I Class, Gyanpur, of offences under ss.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
452 and 323 read with s.34, I.P.C. Kharpattu, one of the appellants, was also companyvicted of an offence under s. 324, I.P.C. They appealed against their companyviction.
His reasons for allowing the application appear, from his order, to be that the application, supported by an affidavit, showed that there was sufficient cause for the number appearance of the appellants accused at the time of the hearing of the appeal, that s. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter called the Code enjoined the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the appellant or his pleader and the Public Prosecutor, that numbernotice was ever issued to the appellants as required by s. 422 of the Code, that s. 367 of the Code laid down what a judgment should companytain and that his judgment of November 30, 1956, amounted to numberjudgment as it did number companytain some of those salient points, that the judgment was without jurisdiction as the case was number really companysidered and numberindependent judgment was arrived at and that it was necessary that the appeal be re heard in the ends of justice.
1299 of 1957.
Against this order, the appellants went in revision to the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. Sankatha Singh and others appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing their application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, Gyanp ur, holding the order of his predecessor for the rehearing of an appeal which had been dismissed earlier to be ultra vires and without jurisdiction and directing the Magistrate to take immediate steps to execute the order passed by it, according to law.
On that date, neither the appellants number their companynsel appeared in Court and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal.
January 25.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on November 30, 1956.
