Chunnu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48846 of 2016 ====================================================== Chunnu Singh, son of late Shailendra Singh, resident of village Panki, P.S. Silao, Distt. Nalanda, at present Chandmari Road, Chutkula Nand Gali, P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt. Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anish Chandra, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 23-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for restoration of Cr. Revision No.464 of 2016 which was dismissed due to non compliance of the preemptory order dated 16th August, 2016 passed by this Court. As pointed out by the Registry, there were certain defects in the application. Despite sufficient time having been given to the petitioner, the defects were not removed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may obtain certain documents within few weeks and thereafter remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter.

By order dated 16th August, 2016, the petitioner was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48846 of 2016 (2) dt.23-11-2016 2/2 granted two weeks peremptory time to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter and even prior to that, on 27th June, 2016, two weeks' time was granted to him for the said purpose. Since the petitioner failed to remove the defects for months together, his application has been dismissed. Even today, while pressing the application for restoration, a submission being made that if the application is restored, the requisite documents for removing the defects would be obtained within few weeks. In my opinion, no reasonable ground has been made for restoration of the revision application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to file another application in the same subject matter after obtaining the required documents.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) S.Ali/- U T