Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
Admit.
Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned Advocate has put in his his appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 by filing vakalatnama.
It is alleged that no offence is made out against the revisionist in view of the law laid down by this Court (reported in 2008 (63) ACC 463, Praveen Kumar Jain versus State of U.P and another).
Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the revision filed by the accused is pending against the order passed by the learned Lower Court for framing the charge, for which it is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that he cam up by way of this revision against the consequential order of the earlier order in response of which, the charge is framed.
Since the matter requires substantial time, it cannot be heard during summer vacations, therefore, be it connnected with earlier revision no.4952 of 2009 and be fixed for hearing peremptorily on 20.7.2010.
Meanwhile no coercive methods of seeking the appearance of the accused- revisionist shall be taken, if accused voluntarily appears before the Court as an binding party.
Order Date :- 22.6.2010 Gaurav