Gopal Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 561 -A, Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of Bedi J. dated January 14, 1969 passed in Criminal Revision No 117 of 1968.
(2.) THE facts leading to the present petition are as follows: - On August 25, 1965 first information report was made by the State against the firm of the Petitioner styled as Messrs Rakesh Industries for offence under Section 5(sic) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The punishment provided under Section 5 of the Act as it then stood was rigorous imprisonment for one year. Section 5 of the Act was amended in 1966 and the sentence for which a convict under that Section could be punished was enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for two rears. After investigation by the police, the Petitioner firm was challaned to by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The Court took cognizance of the case as a summons case. On February 28. 1968, the Court passed an order that the case be tried as a warrant case by virtue of the amendment of Section 5 effected in 1966. The Petitioner firm preferred a revision petition with the Sessions Judge. Chandigarh from that order, by this order dated June 22, 1968, the Sessions Judge made a recommendation to the High Court under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that the offence having been committed before the amendment of Section 5 made in 1966, the Petitioner was punishable for one year and consequently the case should be tried as a summons case and not as a warrant case. After the receipt of the recommendation in the High Court, notices were issued to the parties for November 18, 1968. In the notice issued to the Petitioner firm as it is specifically mentioned in the office copy of the notice on the record the date for which the notice had been issued to the Petitioner was a farzi' date. The Petitioner was not represented by any Counsel. The case came up for hearing before Bedi J., on January 14. 1969. The Petitioner neither appeared in person nor was represented by any Counsel on that date. The recommendation was accepted exparte without the Petitioner being heard and the order of the trial Court dated February 28, 1968, by which the Court directed that the case be heard as a warrant case, was set aside.
(3.) IT is contended by Shri Rajinder Sachar appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that under Rule 8 of Chapter 3 -A in Volume v. of High Court Rules and Orders, it was obligatory on the office of the High Court to issue notice for an actual date after the Petitioner had been served for the 'farzi' or tentative date of November 18, 1968 and be had not engaged any Counsel and was unrepresented on January 14, 1969 when the case came up for disposal.;