V.P.Mathur - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed on 17- 7-1987 by the then VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, who was disposing of Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1987 and who thereby set aside the order dated 4-6-1987 passed by the then I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri in Criminal Case do 1235 of 1987. The learned Magistrate had summoned the accused-opposite parties, 2-4 to stand their trial for an offence punishable under section 344 IPC.
(2.) THE original order sheet of the Court of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge is before me and the relevant entries are dated 14-7-1987 and 17-7-1987. It appears that on 14-7-87 when the revision came up before the learned VI Addl. Sess. Judge, parties appeared before him. THE revisionists appeared through counsel. Inam Ali appeared in person and the court heard the arguments on both sides, and then fixed 18-7-1987 for delivery of judgment. On the original order sheet signatures of Inam Ali find mention in the margin under the date 18- 7-87 fixed for the disposal. It appears that disposal was however made a day before and the judgment was delivered on 17-7-87 and a long explanation has been appended by the Reader of the Court below, to the effect that it was his mistake, on account of which the Court was made to understand that the case was fixed for 17-7-87 for delivery of judgment and due to that mistake the judgment was delivered. We are not concerned with the circumstances in which the judgment was delivered one day before the date fixed. We are only concerned with the fact that it was delivered on 17-7-87 while it was fixed for delivery of judgment on 18-7-87 and what intervened between is that on 17-7-87 after the delivery of the judgment Inam Ali is shown to have moved an application (8-B) for permission to file certain more papers and to file his written arguments vide, 10-B. THEse papers could not be disposed of because by that time the judgment had already been delivered on 17-7-87 one day before the date fixed. It is true that on 14-7-87 the arguments on both sides were heard and since it has been so written in the order sheet maintained by the trial court, 1 am going to accept the plea that Inam Ali's arguments were also heard. If he was not represented by a lawyer it was his responsibility and he can not on that basis say that his arguments could not be legally through. He could have obtained the help of a lawyer, if he so desired. But it appears that on 17-7-87 one day before the date fixed for delivery of judgment he had moved an application to file certain more papers and to place on the record his written arguments. If the judgment had not been delivered on 17-7-87 this application (8-B) was bound to be disposed of by the learned Judge and it is very much possible that he might have accepted the written arguments and also certain more papers might also have been brought on the record and then the judgment could be delivered. I am of the opinion that by accelerating the delivery of the judgment by a day, even though, it might have been due to some mistake of the office, the learned court below has put Inam Ali to prejudice and therefore the revision has got to be allowed. The judgment and order passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri on 17-7-87 has got to be set aside and the case is to go back to the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri who will first dispose of the application (8-B) of Inam Ali and papers 9-B and 10-B and then will give one more opportunity to the parties to have the matter argued before him and then pass a judgment according to law. Ordered accordingly. The record be sent back to the Court below forthwith so that the matter is expedited. Ordered accordingly.;