( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3097 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3242 OF 2010 IN CRIMIANL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2007 Trimbak Ramrao Kavde and others. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the applicants. Smt. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 31st August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for condonation of delay and restoration of revision application No. 38/2007 and also to recall the order of dismissal of the application for restoration. 2. The applicants filed criminal revision application No. 38/2007 against order of conviction and sentence. It appears that by order dated 7th February, 2007, the Rule was ( 2 ) granted and learned Single Judge directed calling of record and proceedings as well as directed suspension of the substantive sentence. Unfortunately, the office objections could not be removed by the applicants within period of four (4) weeks and, therefore, by order dated 26th February, 2010, rendered by learned Single Judge (Potdar, J.), the revision application came to be dismissed. The applicants thereafter filed Criminal Application No. 2787/2010 for condonation of delay and also filed separate other two (2) applications for the purpose of the recalling of the order dated 26th February, 2010. 3. Having heard learned counsel and learned APP and on consideration of the nature of the order rendered by the learned Single Judge (Potdar, J.), I deem it proper to allow the applications. The reason is that criminal revision application cannot be dismissed in default. It is well settled that when Rule is issued in the criminal revision application, it is for this Court to satisfy itself whether the order impugned is legal and proper. A bare reading of Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code goes to show that legality and propriety of the order is required to be examined by this Court. It is explicit that the revisional ( 3 ) jurisdiction is required to be exercised even though the counsel may not be available or there is technical defect due to non-compliance of certain directions. Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its powers of revision. Needless to say, in case of revisional jurisdiction, the Court is required to exercise supervisory jurisdiction with or without assistance of the party or the counsel. In this view of the matter, the applications are allowed and the criminal revision application No. 38/2007 is restored to its original position. It be placed before the Bench dealing with the revision applications. Present applications are accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3097-3242-10 ( 4 )