Advocates appeared :
S.Y. Deopujari, A.P.P., for respondent.
BHANGALE A.P., J.: - By this revision application, the applicant (original accused No. 1) in Regular Criminal Case No. 207/1997 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon, Dist. Washim, challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Case No. 70/2000 dated 26th March 2004, whereby the appeal by the applicant came to be dismissed.
2. It appears that by the judgment and Order dated 16.11.2000 the learned J.M.F.C., Malegaon, Dist. Washim in Regular Criminal Case No. 207/1997 was pleased to acquit the present applicant of offence punishable under section 457 of the indian penal code; however, he was found guilty of offence punishable under section 380 of the i.p.c. and sentenced to RI for six months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 500/- in default, to suffer RI for 15 days. The appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence was heard and decided by the reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Appeal No. 70/2000 on 26th March, 2004.
3. The applicant and his Advocate absent.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.Y. Deopujari contended that in view of section 403 of the code of criminal procedure and since it is a concurrent judgment by which the applicant was found guilty of offence punishable under section 380 i.p.c., based upon well grounded reasons recorded by the trial Magistrate as well as by the Appellate Court, no interference at the hands of this Court is called for. He further submitted that unless there is glaring defect in the procedure or manifest or patent error of law which resulted into flagrant miscarriage of justice, such concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence and well-reasoned judgment and order, ought not to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, especially when the applicant appears least interested to prosecute further his cause in the petition as his Advocate remained absent.
5. Under section 403 criminal procedure code, it is open for the Revisional Court to hear the parties because no party has any right to be heard either personally or by Pleader but the Court may, if it thinks fit, while exercising revisional powers, may hear any party personally or through Pleader. Thus section 403 of cri.p.c. appears crystal clear to indicate that Revision is not vested right for hearing and no party can insist on being heard by the Court. The discretion of the Court to hear the party or Pleader cannot be exercised in favour of indolent litigant remaining absent from the Court personally or through an Advocate.
6. Even otherwise, after having gone through the impugned judgment and orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court, no perversity can be found in conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below. The same are legal, proper and correct and, as such, no interference is required. Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, particulary when findings were recorded concurrently. No exceptional circumstances are made out to interfere in exercise of revisional justification. We do not find any merit in the Revision Application, the same is dismissed.
Application dismissed.
-----