IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.358 of 2000 Date of Decision : January 15, 2010 Hira Singh ....Petitioner Versus Parbhati and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) Order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rewari on 13.10.1999 has been challenged by the complainant by filing the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C.Vide impugned order learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint in default on account of non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel. The complaint filed by the petitioner was fixed for recording of his evidence for 13.10.1999. On that date, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared inspite of the case being called several times till the rising of the Court at 1.15 P.M. Even no intimation of any kind regarding the reasons for non-appearance of the complainant or his counsel was received by the Court. Under these circumstances, the Court was left with no other option but to dismiss the complaint in default under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Criminal Revision No.358 of 2000 -2- The Court then proceeded to acquit the accused-respondents of the charges against them. The only plea taken by the complainant-petitioner in the present revision is that neither he nor his counsel has noted 13.10.1999 as the next date fixed before the trial Court. Instead, both of them had noted 27.10.1999 as the date fixed. The petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the pages of the diary maintained by his counsel before the trial Court as Annexures P1 and P2. A perusal of these pages would reveal that it was not recorded against the date 13.10.1999 that the complaint filed by the petitioner was fixed for that date. Instead it was noted on the page meant for 27.10.1999. In para 5 of the grounds of revision it has been asserted by the complainant that it was only on 27.10.1999, when he appeared in the Court that he came to know that the case had already been dismissed in default on 13.10.1999. The certified copy of the impugned order is also available on the file of the revision. The same was applied vide serial No.914 on 20.10.1999. After receiving the records, the Copying Agency had prepared the certified copy on 22.10.1999 and finally delivered the same on 27.10.1999. In case, the complainant and his counsel had wrongly noted the next date fixed as 27.10.1999 instead of 13.10.1999, there was no occasion for either of them to apply for certified copy of the impugned order dated 13.10.1999 on 20.10.1999. The fact that the certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 20.10.1999 makes Criminal Revision No.358 of 2000 -3- it clear that the complainant and his counsel had not noted next date fixed before the trial Court as 27.10.1999. Instead, they were well aware of the fact that the case was fixed before the trial Court for 13.10.1999. The excuse of wrongly noting down the date does not give them any right to file the present revision In view of the above, no fault can be found with the impugned order whereby the complaint was dismissed in default by the learned Magistrate on account of non-appearance of the complainant and his counsel on 13.10.1999. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) January 15, 2010 JUDGE satish