IMPORTANT POINT
A criminal revision cannot be dismissed for default; it must be considered on its merits, and any order affecting personal liberty must be reasoned.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Chowdhary, J.

1. Heard Shri S. M. Faraz I. Kazmi, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 414/2023- 1190/2023 (Aman Sinha Vs. Ankit Tandan and others), whereby criminal revision preferred by the applicant has been dismissed in default.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially applicant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 herein, which was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Misc. Application No. 935 of 2022 and against which order the applicant preferred criminal revision challenging the order dated 07.07.2023 but the said revision has been dismissed in default by the impugned order herein.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned revisional court dismissing the revision in default is against the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments and he placed reliance upon the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another [Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5298/2023), decided on 11.08.2023], wherein in paras-4 to 7 it has been observed as under:

“4. We have carefully gone through the impugned order. It would reveal that the learned counsel for the appellant as also the appellant were absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. The order would further reveal that after noting their absence, the Court perused the records and ultimately passed the order impugned. However, the order does not reflect consideration of the case on merits. In other words, it is a non- reasoned order. When an adverse order would affect the personal liberty of a person, the fact that he is a convict cannot be a reason to deprive him of fair treatment in the matter of consideration of his revision petition in the manner prescribed by this Court, as the law laid down by this Court in that regard is binding on all Courts by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the decision in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar : (2007) 7 SCC 623, a Two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule laid down by this Court that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed for default would also apply to criminal revisions. The reference thus made was to the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bani Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh : (1996) 4 SCC 720. In Bani Singh’s case (supra), this Court held thus:-

“14. …… The plain language of Section 385 makes it clear that if the appellate court does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it ‘must’ call for the record and Section 386 mandates that after the record is received, the appellate court may dispose of the appeal after hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non- prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are consistent with the material on record. The law, therefore, does not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for default or non-prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the record… ”

6. We are in perfect agreement with the view taken by the Two- Judge Bench in Madan Lal Kapoor’s case (supra) and, the