VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. - (1.) THE main question which falls for consideration is whether the order deciding criminal revision on merit in the absence of any or both parties can be recalled.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Anita Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record. The facts leading to the filing of this restoration/recall application, in brief, are that in the proceeding under Section 125, Cr. P.C. in case No. 226 of 1995 (Smt. Meeta Devi v. Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani) maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/ - p.m. from the date of the application was granted vide order dated 4 -1 -2001 passed by the Family Court, Allahabad. That order was challenged by the applicant -revisionist in this Court in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2001, which was listed for hearing on 16 -7 -2007. When revising the list, the case was called out, the Counsel of the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 were not present in Court. Hence, this Court after hearing learned A.G.A. and going through the record, dismissed the revision on merit. Now the revisionist has come to this Court and aforesaid application to recall the order dated 16 -7 -2007 has been moved. It is alleged in the accompanying affidavit of Pappu, Clerk of Sri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, that on the day of hearing of Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2001, Sri Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the revisionist was arguing the bail application of the accused Rafiq under Section 498 -A, 323 and 504, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr in Court No. 48 before the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Sahi and hence, the Counsel could not appear to argue the revision, which was called in the revised list at about 10.15 a.m. and when the Counsel immediately after completing the argument on the bail application appeared in Court No. 25, order in the revision was already passed.
(3.) IT was submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that although Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2001 has been decided on merit by this Court vide order dated 16 -7 -2007, but since the Counsel for the revisionist was not heard, hence, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can recall that order and restore the revision to its original number. It was also submitted by learned Counsel for applicant that he could not come to Court on 16 -7 -2007 at the time of argument in revision as he was arguing a bail application in Court No. 48.;