RAM ABHILAKH versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 212 · Decided: 02-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM ABHILAKH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.397-Revision Petition filed challenging conviction under s.494, 
C I PC-When matter called, petitioner's counsel failed to appear-Dismissal of 
revision petition by High Court-Propriety of-Held, not proper as petitioner 
had been diligently pursuing the remedy for five years-Also circumstances 
due to which counsel could not appear, duly explained-Pe1:al Code, 1860-
s.494. 
D 
Respondent No.2 alleged that her husband, Appellant, had .married for 
a second time while his marriage with Respondent No.2 was still subsisting 
and thereby committed offence punishable under S.494, IPC. Trial Court held 
the Appellant guilty. The conviction was upheld by the First Appellate Court 
Appellant filed Revision Petition under S.397, CrPC. However his counsel 
E failed to make appearance when the matter was taken up. High Court 
dismissed the revision petition in the absence of Appellant's counsel. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the Appellant that he had 
been pursuing the remedy diligently for nearly five years and without taking 
note of the difficulties due to which his counsel could not appear, the Revision 
F Petition should not have been dismissed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no dispute that prior to the date of disposal by the 
High Court the appellant was diligently pursuing the remedy. The appellant 
G had also pointed out circumstances due to which the appellant's counsel could 
not appear on the date fixed. The plea has not been disbelieved. Considering 
the background facts as highlighted above it is clear that the appellant has 
always been diligently pursuing the case. It is not the case of the respondent 
No.2 that the appellant was in any manner responsible for delay in the 
H 
212 
I 
; 
) 
RAMABHILAKHv. STATEOFU.P. [PASAYAT,J.] 
213 
proceedings. Above being the position, the orders of the High Court are set A 
aside. The High Court shall hear the matter on merits. [Paras 7-9] 
!214-C-E) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 
2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 17-4-2006 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in C.M.A. No. 6838/ 
2005 in Criminal Revision No. 306/1999. 
Anurag Kishore and Rajesh Kumar for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant challenged the order passed by a learned Single Judge 
dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant. 
3. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary in view of the 
limited nature of the controversy. 
4. Marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 2 was solemnized 
B 
c 
D 
in June 1980. Differences cropped up between the parties and various cases 
were instituted. Grievance was made by the respondent No. 2 that appellant E 
had married for a second time though his marriage with respondent No.2 was 
subsisting and thereby he committed offence punishable under Section 494 
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the '!PC'). Learned First Additional 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli held that the appellant was guilty'. An 
appeal was preferred before the District and Sessions Judge Raebareli. By 
order dated 29.9. I 999 the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial F 
court was affirmed. A Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code of 
Crim.inal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was filed before the Allahabad 
High Court, Lucknow Bench. By the impugned judgment learned Single 
Judge of the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision holding that 
concurrent findings had been recorded by the courts below and therefore no 
interference was called for. The application was disposed of in the absence G 
of appellant's counsel. An application to recall the order was filed on the 
ground that the matter could not have been decided ex parte. The review 
application was also dismissed on the ground that there was belated approach 
for recalling the order. 
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A that on 30.1.2004 because of circumstances beyond control there was no 
appearance when the matter was taken up. The appellant has been pursuing 
the remedy diligently for nearly five years and without taking note of the 
various difficulties 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.