AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.S. Azad, J.
Arguments heard.
It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that proceedings u/s 145 of the Cr. P.C. were initiated by one Atahar Hussain whereas the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge Shahdol has disposed of and decided Cr. R. No. 3/99 on 26th of June 2000, wherein the order dated 24th of December 98 passed by S.D.M. Sohagpur in Cr. Case No. 356/86 was in challenge, against this petitioner, who has nothing to do with the land in dispute. It is submitted by Shri Agrawal that in the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 26th of June 2001, be quashed so far as this petitioner is concerned. Shri Agrawal does not challenge the impugned order on merits.
A perusal of record of Cr. Case No. 356/86 disposed of by S.D.M. Sohagpur on 24th of December 98, reveals that the same was initiated by one Atahar Hussain s/o Muwassir Hussain R/o Sohagpur Dist. Shahdol who filed the petition u/s 145 & 146 of the Cr. P.C. The aforesaid Criminal Case No. 356/86 stood decided in favour of Qazi Atahar s/o Muwassir Hussain R/o Sohagpur. The order dated 24th of December 98 passed in favour of Qazi Atahar in Cr. Case No. 356/86, was challenged by the non-applicants of this revision, before IInd A.S.J. Shahdol, but in revision petition Qazi Aktar was stated to be non-applicant instead of Qazi Atahar. In aforesaid revision petition no. 3/99, which stood disposed of by Ilnd A.S.J. Shahdol, the notice was issued in the name of Qazi Atahar s/o Qazi Muwassir R/o Sohagpur for his appearance on 2nd of September 99, whereas the earlier notice was issued in the name of Qazi Aktar s/o Qazi Muwassir. The process fee is found to have been paid for issuance of notice to Qazi Atahar s/o Muwassir Hussain. On 5th of November 99, Shri Bail Mohammad Advocate filed his memo of appearance on hehalf of Qazi Aktar in the aforesaid revision No. 3 of 99 and then appeared for non-applicant, till disposal of that revision petition. A perusal of order dated 26th of June, 2000, passed by A.S.J. Shahdol, reveals that by mistke the learned Addl. Sessions Judge got the name of Qazi Aktar typed in order dated 26th of June, 2000, instead of Qazi Atahar, because in revision petition also the same mistake was committed by petitioner''s counsel.
This petitioner dis not raise any objection in the court of IInd A.S.J. Shahdol, about his identity nor did he point out that Qazi Atahar Hussain is a different person from this petitioener. It means Aktar and Atahar, are the names of one person as this petitioner led the Court to believe this fact by not challenging the aforesaid typing mistake. Now, taking advantage of aforesaid typing mistake, this petitioner has challenged the impugued order, in the name of Qazi Aktar Hussain.
Since the aforesaid acts of acquiscence of this petitioner debars him to challenge his identity as explained above, I do not find nay merit in this revision.
This petition is thus devoid of any merit, which is disallowed and rejected.