Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravi Shankar Rao vs State on 25 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI
Crl. Rev. No.71/12
Misc. Application No. 309/12
Sh. Ravi Shankar Rao,
S/o Sh. G.S. Rao,
R/o E3, Kakateeya Apartment,
86, 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.71/12.
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 19 days of delay 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 Crl. Rev. No.71/12 1 Mumbai from 26.08.2012 to 30.11.2012 due to some professional obligations and could come to attend the case hearing on one or two occasions and could not possibly meet his counsel, who was also not available during his visits.
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 date on which the charge is 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 19 days in filing the revision petition.
In the application, it has been alleged that the petitioner - applicant was in Mumbai from 26.08.2012 to 30.11.2012 due to some professional obligations Crl. Rev. No.71/12 2 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.
Applicant has not placed on record complete record to suggest that during the period from 26.08.2012 to 30.11.2012 he was continuously out of station and unable to see his counsel so as to advice him for the purpose of revision petition.
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 record that he was continuously out of station 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.
Announced in Open Court
on 25.03.2013 (Narinder Kumar )
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi.
Crl. Rev. No.71/12 3