Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. MMO No.100 of 2008 Dated of Decision: December 03, 2008. Satish Chander. …..… Petitioner. Versus Smt. Salindra Devi. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The records of the courts below have been received. Matter can be disposed of at this stage. Heard. In brief the facts of the case shorn of the unnecessarily details are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent allegedly for intentionally and deliberately defaming him in the society, thus sought her punishment, for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. as he was of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the respondent for the said offence. 2 The petitioner feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order filed a revision petition No.1-D/X/08 in the Court of Sessions, which was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kangra at Dharamshala for its disposal in accordance with law. On receiving the file, it was fixed for the office report on 8.1.2008 and after perusing the office report, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered it to be listed on 17.1.2008 and the notice was sent to the respondent for 16.2.2008. On 16.2.2008, the respondent’s counsel had put in appearance but neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present, hence the revision petition was dismissed in default. The said order can be usefully quoted as under:- “16.2.2008: Present: None for the Petitioner. Sh. Ashish Mahajan, Adv for the respondent. Be put up after lunch. Sd/- (L.R. Sharma) Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Kangra at D/Shala.” “16.2.2008: Case called again. Present: None for the petitioner. Sh. Ashish Mahajan, Adv, counsel for the respondent. It is already 4.35 PM. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to point out that there is any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the ld. Trial court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The record of the Ld. Trial Court if any, be sent 3 alongwith copy of this order and the file of this court after its due completion be consigned to the Records. Announced: Sd/- 16.2.2008. (L.R. Sharma) Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Kangra at Dharamshala” The above order clearly shows that the matter was dismissed in default at 4.35 p.m., whereas the prescribed time to all the subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh is from 10.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with the interval for lunch from 1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. as per the Notification No.HHC/Admn.6-20/77-XI-16885-16902 dated Ist December, 1994. Thus, the court proceedings can take place only between 10.00 A.M. to 4.30 P.M. except during the lunch hours, unless the parties agree for conducting the case before or after court hours. Therefore, the dismissal of the criminal revision petition at 4.35 P.M. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is otherwise wrong as no litigant can be legitimately expecting to appear before and after the court hours to attend the cases. Hence, the dismissal of the petition in default of appearance of the complainant after the court hours is absolutely unsustainable. Further the matter relates to the administration of criminal justice. It is held by the Apex Court that a criminal matter cannot be dismissed for default and it must be decided on merits. In Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar and Others [(2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 623] the Supreme Court has held that the same reasoning applies to the criminal revision petition and hence the criminal revision also cannot be dismissed in default. 4 Thus, the present order dismissing the criminal revision petition in default is indefensible. Therefore, the order dated 16.2.2008 passed in criminal revision petition No.1-D/X/08 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kangra at Dharamshala is unsustainable thus set-aside. The case is remanded back to his court for its disposal in accordance with law. The parties are directed to be present before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Kangra at Dharamshala on 31.12.2008. Records of the courts below be returned forthwith. December 03, 2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.