- (1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.
(2.) IN the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner failed to appear on the date fixed as a result of which, the liberty to lead evidence was closed by the trial Court vide order dated 9-3-2006. An application to recall the aforesaid order was moved, and the same was allowed on the cost of Rs. 100/- vide order dated 29-3-2006. No cost was deposited. Another application was moved to deposit the cost on 24-4-2006 and the same was dismissed on 2-5-2006. This order was challenged in a criminal revision No. 190 of 2006. The revisional Court dismissed the revision on 10-1-2007. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that one single opportunity may be given to him to deposit cost and he undertakes not to be absent on a single date in future. After hearing Counsels for the respective parties, it is evident that evidence was closed as far back on 9-3-2006 and almost one year has gone by, but the proceedings are yet at standstill. In the event the petitioner deposits Rs. 1,500/- as the cost in addition to the cost of Rs. 100/- imposed by the Court below, the order dated 9-3-2006 closing chance of the petitioner to adduce evidence shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the petitioner alongwith a certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited by the petitioner, shall be disbursed to the respondent No. 2 Shashi w/o Naagar Singh without furnishing any security. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to lead evidence subject to an undertaking that he will not be absent on a single date in future.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Petition disposed of. .;