1. Rule. Mr. MB Parikh for respondent No.1 states that he will be entering his appearance in this revision application also since he is already appearing in companion criminal revision application No.226 of 2008 which arises from the same order. He also states that he waives notice of Rule. Mr. KC Shah, learned APP appears for and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. In the peculiar facts of the case, the counsel for respective parties jointly request that the application may be taken up for final hearing today and may be decided finally today.
2. The applicant herein has preferred present appeal against the order dated 22.2.2008 whereby, the revision application No.78 of 2006 came to be dismissed only on the ground that the cross appeal preferred by the original accused and opponent of revision application No.78 of 2006 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. It is pertinent that by the same order the learned Court has also, the counsel pointed out, disposed off a companion appeal being criminal appeal No.8 of 2005 and the concerned appellant has preferred criminal revision application No.226 of 2008 against the order. The reasoning assigned by the learned revisional Court is untenable and the proceedings relating to the revision application No.78 of 2006 could not have been dismissed on the ground that the appeal of the accused was dismissed. The impugned order is ex-facie bad in law and without proper application of mind. It deserves to be set aside.
3. In this view of the matter, the application is allowed. The order dated 22.2.2008 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded and the learned Court is directed to restore the proceedings of revision application No.78 of 2006 to file and to restore the proceedings and to proceed further with the hearing in accordance with law. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc