- (1.) GIRIDHAR Malaviya, J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The contention of the applicant is that he was not stall aware of the proceedings pending against him in the court of IV th. Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhansi with the result that the proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. were drawn against him. By this application the applicant has also sought relief of quash ing of the summoning order in Special Case No. 138 of 1991 passed by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi in the case of Mahabir Prasad v. Sadanand and others, under Section 394/397, I. P. C. , P. S. Nawabad, district Jhansi.
(2.) AGAINST the summoning order the applicant has a right to file a revision in the appropriate court. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the period of limitation for filing a revision has expired, hence this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been preferred in this Court. I am afraid the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P. 'c. cannot be ulilised to circumvent the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. If there was some good cause which prevented the applicant to file the revision against the summoning order within time he can get its benefit by moving an appropriate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the applicant then contended that although he had no notice of the proceedings pending in the court below, yet for no fault of his proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. have been drawn against him. It is a matter of common knowledge that such a person against whom the pro ceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P. C. are drawn can always approach the court concerned to claim that he had no notice of the proceedings pending against him which may justify his application for recalling of the warrants issued to him. If the applicant also feels aggrieved against the proceedings under Section 82-83, Cr. P. C. he can move the court concerned for recall of the non-bailable warrant, such an application of the applicant should be dispos ed of on merit by the court concerned where after alone any other action should be taken against the petitioner by the court concerned. With these observations this application stands finally disposed of.
(3.) LET a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the applicant on payment of usual charges. Application disposed of. .;