IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU TV“ CHHATTISGARH ' 5—( I 2907 Cr. M.P. No. KU. Sunifc Porfey, D/o. Shri Chha’ror Singh, aged cbou1 14 * years, fhrough guardian of L minor Shri ChhaTar Singh R/o. \g;3’ J P Saila Nawapara, P/s. Pali, Dis’d. w Korba (C.G.) Agplicant/Revisioner VERSUS '1. S’ra’re of Chhattisgarh Through P/S. Pali, Disff. Korba (co) 2. Shiv Shankdr @ Chhoto S/o. Prem Singh Salam, aged Li; x ‘ abou’r 25 years, R/o. VIH. I % Saiia, NaWapara, P/s. Pa‘li, “TN Disrr. Korobo (co) APPLICATION UNDER SECTI0N 4824(0F CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR RESTORAT’TON OF Cr.R. NO. 646 I 04"” And 1l.A. No. 3105 of 2006 And HCri.) P. No. 3583 of 20041 m W\ Non-Applicanis Respondents R XI—HC—22 WW .nouu..nuu.nunuoumm ~ (no? 9/7 MWWW 0‘ MWQg NO kN'E)’LOO%“ nu n ‘ ‘ 200 nunun...un.u.u WW WW Wmmw Division Sench : Han Mr VK shrivagtava Ea Han, MrEmrenma M§$hra. uh} 8n£n2€é€ri Shri Vipin Tiwari,:caunsel far Shri Vinay Harit, Dy‘ Advo Siatefrespondeht No 1. None for respondent No2. The case is listed for orders r dated 31 «1 ~2007 The m ranr petmon has tween med under Sechon 48” or the UPC for 46 of 20(34 (Ku. $umta Portey ire. State of s dismissed by this Court on 8-12—2006 with an ithen for hearing on apoiioation for oondona‘tion the application for oondonation of delay was rd consequently the criminal revision No.646 of :he petitioner :ate Gemeral/AddL PubHc Praeec-utar for the m default as pointed out by the office vide note restoration of crrmmal revrsron N06 Qhhattiegarh 8e Anether): which we observation that the matter was Heter of delay and eince none appeared dismissed for want of Drosecution at 2004 was aleo dismissed. We have heard learned cour 8-1 2—2006 whereby the appiioation r the criminal revision has been dismi this petition for restoration of the c considered opinion that the reason a 5s sufficient. Coneequentiy, the instant for rejection and threjame is aooordi ‘\k Gowri sel for the parties and perused the order dated if the petitioner for oondonation of delay in tiling seed for non—prosecution, Even if it is held that ‘iminal revision is maintainable, we are of the igned for non-appearance on 84 2—2006 is not petition (entire (PR‘; M1443 or 2007) is liable ugly rejected. i DHmENDRA MISHRA Judge Sd/- , sd/_ V.K. Shrivatava Judge