AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O. R Jain, J.—Mr. S.K. Srivastava is present for the revisionist and Sri Santosh Tripathi for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 911998 by which an application under Section 126 (2), Cr. P.C. has been dismissed by the Court below.
An ex pane order under Section 125, Cr. P.C. was passed against the revisionist on 21697. He filed an application under Section 126 (2), Cr. P.C. on 13897 i.e. within three months as provided under the law.
The revisionist explained his absence on the ground that he remained ill from 2741997 to 2861997. He also filed a medical certificate in support of the averment. The Court below has rejected the application on the ground that there is no explanation for the delay between 28697 to 13897.
The learned Magistrate has taken a very harsh view. Theapplication was filed within limitation and the reason for absence was explained.
In view of the above the revision is allowed and it is ordered that in case the revisionist deposits Rs. 5,000 before the III Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur within one month from today, the revisionist will be allowed to contest the case and proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. will be decided on merits. It is stated by the revisionist that he has already deposited Rs. 3,900. If that is so, it will be adjusted against the sum of Rs. 5,000.
Revision allowed.