IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 632 of 1988 Date of Decision : September 30, 2010 Madanlal Bhasin Rana ....Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Petitioner in person. None for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral) Challenge in the present revision was to the order dated 25.4.1988 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 8.12.1987 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri in Criminal Case No. 1041 dated 30.11.1983, was dismissed on the ground that despite several calls having been given, none had appeared for the petitioner before the said Court and the Court was of the view that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the petition. On 29.7.1988, the present revision came up for preliminary hearing when notice was issued. The revision petition was, however, dismissed on 10.2.1989 on account of non-appearance and non- prosecution on behalf of the petitioner. The order dated 10.2.1989 was, however, recalled on 22.2.1989. On 17.12.1988, the hearing of the Crl. Revision No. 632 of 1988 -2- revision was adjourned to 18.1.1989, after the petitioner had been directed to produce a copy of the order of the trial Court against which the revision petition had been filed by him. The petitioner then filed Criminal Misc. No. 408 of 1989 for the grant of exemption from filing the certified copy of the order passed by the trial Court. The said application was, however, dismissed on 10.2.1989 for non-appearance and non-prosecution. The present revision was, thereafter, taken up for hearing on 22.2.1989 when the following order was passed:- “Vide impugned order criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default by the lower revisional Court. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss a criminal revision in default. The impugned order is set aside and the revision is directed to be heard on merits. The lower courts record be summoned for 10.4.1989.” It is apparent from the above that the present revision stood allowed and the impugned order set-aside as there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss a criminal revision in default. Once the revision has already been disposed of on 22.2.1989, no further orders are required to be passed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 30, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1