Delhi District Court
Sh. Mandar Mulmuley vs State on 25 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.72/12
Misc. Application No. 311/12
Sh. Mandar Mulmuley,
S/o Sh. D.K. Mulmuley,
R/o M24, Ramakrishna Apartments,
Plot No.29, I.P. Extension,
Delhi. .....Revisionist
Versus
State .......Respondent
Date of Institution :17.12.2012
Date of Judgment :25.03.2013
J U D G M E N T
This order is to dispose of application U/s 5 Limitation Act filed with prayer for condonation of delay, in filing of revision petition no.72/12.
Petitioner - applicant has challenged order dt.02.07.2012 and the charge framed against him on 28.08.2012 in case FIR no.392/91 of PS Daryaganj.
In the application, it has been alleged that there is delay of 19 days in filing the revision petition, but the same is unintentional, bonafide and due to lack of communication, the reason being that the petitioner - applicant was in Nagpur from 29.08.2012 to 01.12.2012 to look after his ailing parents and could come to attend Crl. Rev. No.72/12 1 the case hearing on one or two occasions and could not possibly meet his counsel, who was also not available during his visits.
Subsequent to the filing of the application, the applicant has placed on record photocopy of medical record of Smt. Pushpa Lata and of Sh. D.K. Mulmuley prescription slips are dt.10.09.2012 & 28.09.2012 and dt.05.11.2012 and purported to have been issued by Dr. Atul Saxena, having his clinic in I.P. Extension, Delhi.
Learned counsel has referred to decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors., AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353; Delhi Development Authority Vs. Rajindra Properties & Industries, RSA No. 135/2007, Decided on 06.12.07 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; Jyotsana Sharda Vs. Gaurav Sharda in Crl.Rev. P. NO.132/2009, Decided on 22.12.09 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; and Prashant Goel Vs. State in Crl. M.C. 1660/2007, decided on 13.10.09 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Herein the petitioner has challenged two orders one dt.02.07.2012 vide which charge was ordered to be framed and secondly, the charge framed on 28.09.2012. The period of limitation for filing of revision in such like situation starts from the dates on which the charges are actually framed. In this regard, reference may be made to decision in Arwind Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCT, Delhi, 1999 (1) JCC (Delhi) 180.
Herein, counting the period of limitation from 28.08.2012 revision petition could be filed by 26.11.2012. It has been filed on 17.12.2012. So there is delay of Crl. Rev. No.72/12 2 19 days in filing the revision petition.
In the application, it has been alleged that the petitioner - applicant was in Nagpur from 29.08.2012 to 01.12.2012 to look after his ailing parents and that he came to attend the the case herein only on one or two occasions. Further, it has been submitted that as and when he came, he could meet his counsel because of his nonavailability during this visits. Trial Court Record would reveal that petitioner was present before the Trial Court on 12.09.2012, 18.10.2012 & 20.11.2012. He did not appear before the Trial Court on 27.09.2012. Counsel for applicant has not filed his affidavit that he was not available on 12.09.2012, 18.10.2012 & 20.11.2012.
Having regard to the fact that this is a revision petition and the object of provisions U/s 397 Cr.P.C. is to see if the impugned order suffers from any irregularity or illegality, although, petitioner has not placed on record complete medical record or affidavit of his counsel in support of his averments put forth in this application, taking into consideration object of the provisions U/s 397 Cr.P.C., this court deems to be a fit case to condone delay in filing revision petition so as to hear the petitioner on merits. Accordingly, the application U/s 5 of Limitation Act is allowed. Revision petition is admitted.
Announced in Open Court
on 25.03.2013 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.72/12 3