ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 20.12.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mansa whereby learned Sessions Judge has cancelled and forfeited bail bonds and surety bonds to the State for non-appearance of the accused revisionist on the date fixed and has further directed to issue nonbailable warrants to the revisionist as well as notice to his surety for Record reveals that accused revisionist is facing trial pursuant to FIR No. 33 dated 3.3.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 489, 489-C IPC registered at Police Station Sardulgarh District Mansa. Petitioner-accused did not appear before learned trial Court on 20.12.2010 and no intimation was given by his counsel to the learned trial Court as to why accused is not present before the trial Court, therefore, trial Court has passed the impugned order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist accused has vehemently argued that on 20.12.2010 petitioner was very well present in the Court campus, however, did not appeared before the Court since lawyers were on strike and were not appearing before the trial Court. LEARNED counsel has further argued that petitioner was told by the clerk of the counsel that since advocates are on strike so dates would be given and the next date fixed by the Court shall be informed to the petitioner. LEARNED counsel has further argued that on 8.3.2011 petitioner could not appear, since petitioner was under the impression that new date shall be given to the petitioner. Even if first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner accused is accepted that on 20.12.2010, petitioner-accused was present in the Court and could not appear on the saying of the clerk of the counsel that next date shall be fixed by the Court, since lawyers are on strike, even then second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted that on the next date also i.e. on 8.3.2011 petitioner did not appear because he was under the confusion that this time also, next date would be fixed. Had there been any bonafide on the part of the petitioner, petitioner would have filed an application soon thereafter requesting the Court for recalling of the order giving all the reasons as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court and the trial Court would have passed the appropriate order after appreciating the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY petitioner did not appear before the Court on 20.12.2010 and thereafter on 8.3.2011, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed.;