SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J. - (1.) By filing the instant revisional application, the petitioners seek to set aside/quash the impugned judgement and order dated 29th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2014 dismissing the appeal ex parte for non-appearance of the appellants/petitioners on the date of final hearing. The petitioners have also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay of 181 days in preferring this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were absolutely dependent upon their learned conducting advocate in the matter of prosecuting the appeal before the appellate court, but, unfortunately, their learned advocate did not appear on the dates of hearing and as a result, the appeal was heard and decided ex parte. The petitioners were in complete dark and had no knowledge about such ex parte disposal of the appeal. Their learned advocate did not give any intimation to them. Consequently warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioners after the lower court record was sent back. When the warrants of arrest issued on 31st December, 2015 were sought to be executed, then and then only the petitioners became aware of the entire state of affairs. Thereafter, they contacted with their learned advocate and have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with an application for condonation of delay being C.R.A.N. 305 of 2016.
(3.) Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate further submits that the petitioners, for whatever reasons might be, have been denied the right and/or opportunity of being heard in the appeal which they preferred against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court against them. Therefore, if the delay is not condoned and they are not given opportunity to place their grievance before the appellate court, they will be seriously prejudiced and it will also cause miscarriage of justice. Therefore, according to him, the delay should be condoned and the petitioners should be allowed to place their say before the appellate court.;