By the impugned judgment learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision holding that companycurrent findings had been recorded by the companyrts below and therefore numberinterference was called for.
Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary in view of the limited nature of the companytroversy.
There is numberappearance on behalf of the respondent.
The application was disposed of in the absence of appellants companynsel.
A Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
On 29.9.2006 numberice was issued, limited to the question as to why the High Court should number re hear the matter since the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition without hearing the appellant.
The review application was also dismissed on the ground that there was belated approach for recalling the order.
Differences cropped up between the parties and various cases were instituted.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that on 30.1.2004 because of circumstances beyond companytrol there was numberappearance when the matter was taken up.
The appellant has been pursuing the remedy diligently for nearly five years and without taking numbere of the various difficulties due to which the appellants companynsel companyld number appear, the Revision Petition should number have been dismissed.
The appellant had also pointed out circumstances due to which the appellants companynsel companyld number appear on the date fixed.
An appeal was preferred before the District and Sessions Judge Raebareli.
5182 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli held that the appellant was guilty.
By order dated 29.9.1999 the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial companyrt was affirmed.
Marriage between the appellant and respondent No.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
An application to recall the order was filed on the ground that the matter companyld number have been decided ex parte.
There is numberdispute that prior to the date of disposal i.e. 30.1.2004 the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy.
2 was solemnized in June 1980.
Appellant challenged the order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant.
It is number the case of the respondent No.2 that the appellant was in any manner responsible for delay in the proceedings.
