- (1.) B. C. Kandpal, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the applicants, who are the complainant in the criminal Case No. 412/2003, State Versus Ramesh and others, U/ss 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 506 I. P. C. challenging the order dated 6-9-2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Crimi nal Misc. Case No. 2/2005 Smt. Vachan Dei Vs. State and others, by which the revision filed by the applicants against the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed in default of the revision ists.
(2.) HEARD Sri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sundar Singh Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. The record reveals that the op posite parties 1 to 5 were tried for the offences U/ss 147,148,149,323, 324, 325, 506 I. P. C. and the learned Magis trate after having perused the evidence on record acquitted the opposite parties 1 to 5, vide judgment and order dated 4-8-2004. The revisionists thereafter preferred a revision against the acquit tal of the respondents 1 to 5 before the court of District and Sessions Judge. The revision filed by the applicants/com plainants was dismissed in their default vide order dated 6-9-2005 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order have preferred this petition before this court.
(3.) THE revision was filed by the pe titioners against the acquittal of respond ent Nos. 1 to 5 and the law expects that the revisional court while disposing of a revision against the acquittal of the ac cused persons, is not supposed to dis miss the revision merely on the ground of default of the revisionist. THE court should peruse the reasoning of the trial court in the judgment with a view to satisfy itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are con sistent with the material available on record. THE law does not envisage the dismissal of the revision for default or non-prosecution, but only contemplates the dismissal of the same on merits af ter perusal of the record. THErefore, I find it difficult to agree with the view adopted by the lower revisional court that if the revisionist or his Pleader is not present before the court, the proper course would be to dismiss the revision against the acquittal for want of pros ecution. The lower revisional court ought to have decided the revision after hav ing perused the material available on record and satisfying himself as to whether the finding recorded by the trial court acquitting the accused persons, is consistent with the evidence on record or not.;