The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal revision cannot be dismissed in default or for non-prosecution, and the Court has the inherent power to recall such orders.

"Whether criminal revision can be dismissed in default or non-prosecution and whether such order can be recalled" are two cardinal questions that fall for consideration in this restoration application, by means of which, the order dated 30-3-2007 passed in criminal revision No. 4693 of 2006 Mithaee Lal v. State of U. P. and others is sought to be recalled.

2. From the record, it transpires that criminal revision referred to above was listed on 30-3-2007. When the case was called out, the counsel of the revisionist was not present even in the revised list. Hence, Honble Vinod Prasad, J., passed the following order :-

"List is revised. Even in the revised list, learned counsel for the revisionist is not present.

This revision is dismissed for non prosecution. Interim order dated 24-8-2006 stands vacated."

3. Prayer to recall above mentioned order has been made in this restoration/recall application, which is accompanied by the affidavit of revisionist. No counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties although their counsel are present today.

4. Heard argument of Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist, Sri Dashrath Lal, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Cr. P. C.) to dismiss the revision in default or for non prosecution and since the revision in present case was dismissed for non-prosecution, hence the order dated 30-3-2007 passed in criminal revision 4693 of 2006, being illegal, should be recalled by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

6. On the contrary, it was vehemently contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no provision in Cr. P. C. analogous to order 9, Rules 4, 9 or 13 and order 41, Rule 19 C.P.C. and hence, the order dated 30-3-2007 passed by another Bench of this Court in criminal revision No. 4693 of 2006 cannot be recalled, as there is no provision in Cr. P. C. to recall such orders.

7. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist that criminal revision cannot be dismissed in default or for non-prosecution. It is settled law that criminal revision has to be decided on merit, even if the counsel of the parties are not present to make their submissions. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar, 2007 (59) All Cri C 788 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 826) in which the Honble Apex Court has held that criminal revision cannot be dismissed in default or for non-prosecution and it has to be decided on merit. It is also held by the Honble Apex Court that criminal appeal also cannot be dismissed in default. Therefore, in view of this specific law laid down by the Honble Apex Court, the order dated 30-3-2007, whereby criminal revision No. 4693 of 2006 was dismissed for non-prosecution, is not in accordance with law.

8. Now the question remains whether the order dismissing criminal revision for default or non-prosecution can be recalled. In my considered opinion, such order can certainly be recalled by the Court in exercise of inherent powers, which are vested in all Courts whether Civil or Criminal. In this regard, I may refer the case of Bishambhar Dayal v. State of Shaghir Ahmad, 1958 All LJ 389, in which criminal revision was dismissed in default by the Sessions Judge. That order was subsequently recalled on the application of the revisionist. The order of recalling was challenged by opposite party in this Court. It has been held by this Court that revision dismissed for default of appearance can be reheard by a Sessions Judge. It is further held that the Sessions Judge not having justified in dismissing the revision on the ground of default i