u^~ mP if!//^ HieHCOlTRTOFGHHATTISCfeARHATBILASPlHR DIVI8IONBBNCH CORAM; PETITIOI^R RESPONDENTS HON'BI-B MR. T.P. 8HWRMAa> HON'BLR MR. N.K. AGARWAL. JJ. Ct.M.P.tP.R.iNo. 4256/09 Aiirrit 'Ekka S/o Lenus EkKa, aged about 28 years, Resldent of '^iUage Lughutta, Police Station Ramanuj^nj, District Siu^uja (C.O.). , VERSUS 1) 2) Joseph Barva S/o Lode Ram Barva.-agedaboi.it 22 years, Occupation Farmlng (Agriculti.ire) ResidentofVfflageSemraKathara (Kodaura) Police Station Rajpur, District Sui^uja (C.G.). Aceused) State of CUhatti^arh through Police Station Rajpur, District Si.u^uja(C.G.). PETmON UNDER SBCTION 482 OF CODB OF OUffleHTAL PROGEaitTREFOR RESTCCTtATION OP C3UMINAL RBVISKMTNo. 217/200S. Presenfc- Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.RavindraAgrawal, P.L. forthe State/respondent N0. 2. ^s ORAt-ORDER (Passed on 23/02/2il(l<q The foUowmg ludsanent of fhe Coiirt was passed bv TJ>.Sharma. Js- 1. Heard. 2. Vide order dated 8/7/09 cnnlinal rewsion No. 217 /'2005 was dismissed for non-prosecution. o' 3. Leacned counsel for the petitioner submits that no limitation has been prescribed for restoration of ; criminal revision so dismissed m tenns of under Section 482 offheCode ofCriminal Procedure, 1973. 4. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner further subxnits that he was busy in anothec Bench therefore, he was not present before tl% Court when case is called out for hearing. 5. On due consideration, we are satisfled that petitioner has been able to explain his non-appearance when fhe case was cafled out. Consequentfy, fhe petition 1s allowed and criminal revislon No. 217/2005 disniissed for want of prosecution is restored ia its original ni-imber. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K-Agarawal Judge J';:i