IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.735 of 2002 ================================================== 1. Dharam Nath Prasad @ Dharam Nath Sah. 2. Dharamdeo Sah. (Both sons of late Bishun Sah, resident of village-Gayghat, P.S.- Ander, District- Siwan) .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Basmati Devi, wife of Munilal Kahar, resident of village- Gayghat, P.S.-Ander, District- Siwan. .... .... Opposite Parties With Criminal Revision No. 31 of 2003 ================================================== Bisundeo Sah @ Bisundev Sah, son of late Raghu Sah, resident of village- Gayghat, P.S.-Ander, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Basmati Devi, wife of Munilal Kahar, resident of village- Gayghat, P.S.- Ander, District- Siwan. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== ===== Appearance : (In CR. REV. No. 735 of 2002) For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Advocate (In CR. REV. No. 31 of 2003) For the Petitioner :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mrs. I.B. Pandey, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== ===== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. Cr. Rev. No.735/2002 and Cr. Rev. No.31/2003 arise Patna High Court CR. REV. No.735 of 2002 dt.09-12-2011 2 out of order dated 9.02.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Siwan in Cr. Appeal No.48/1997 by which the appeal has been dismissed for non-filing of the requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2. As such, both these revision applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and also learned counsel for the State. It appears that the petitioners filed Cr. Appeal No.48/1997 against the judgment and order dated 26.05.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist class in Trial No.112/1997 (complaint case no.622/1991) by which they were convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three years under Section 467, two years each under Sections 468 and 420 of the I.P.C. The appeal was filed on 20.06.1997. On 25.06.1997, the Criminal Appeal was admitted and records of the trial court was called for and the petitioners were directed to filed requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 and the case was adjourned to 30.07.1997. Thereafter, several adjournments were granted to the petitioners for filing the requisites for the issuance of notice on opposite party no.2. Even the order-sheet was also shown to the learned counsel for Patna High Court CR. REV. No.735 of 2002 dt.09-12-2011 3 the petitioners, but even thereafter, the requisites for issuance of notice was not filed and finding no way out, the criminal appeal lno.48/1997 was dismissed on 9.02.1998 vide the impugned order. It appears that the petitioners have been very negligent in prosecuting the appeal. More than sufficient time has been given for the filing of the requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party no.2, but the order has not been complied with. However, considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside at a cost of Rs.1000/each to be paid by the petitioners meaning thereby the criminal appeal will be restored to its original file after the receipt of the deposit of Rs.3000/- by the petitioners in the Nazarat, Civil Court, Siwan and filing receipt in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Siwan within a period of one month from the date of order. The amount of cost will be payable to the complainant-opposite party no.2. In the result, both these revision applications are allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 9th December, 2011 N.A.F.R./V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)