Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Ranjeet Singh Bundela on 6 August, 2014
1 CRR.384.2013
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranjeet Singh Bundela
06.08.2014
Shri Pramod Pachori, Public Prosecutor, for the
petitioner/State.
Shri Ashish Saraswat, Advocate, for respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.5892/2013 which is an application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing present revision.
This revision has been filed after a period of 22 days than the prescribed under the limitation act.
Delay has been explained in the application which is supported by an affidavit. Accordingly, I.A.No.5892/2013 is hereby allowed and the delay in filing present revision stands condoned.
Heard on admission.
This revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.19/2012 (Ranjeet Singh Bundela Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) whereby order dated 25.11.11 passed in Appeal No.21/09 was set aside.
In brief, the facts of the case giving rise to the present revision are that on the fateful night of 24/05/2008 during search truck bearing number MKI O355 was seized by forest officers. Forest Case No.38/08-09 was registered. Confiscation proceedings were initiated. An information was given to the Court of concerning Judicial Magistrate First Class vide letter No.184 dated 07-06-2008. After taking into consideration the evidence, confiscation order was passed on 27.03.2009. Being 2 CRR.384.2013 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ranjeet Singh Bundela aggrieved by the same, appeal was preferred before the appellate authority i.e. Chief Conservator of Forest, Range Shivpuri but the same was dismissed on 25.11.2011. Being dissatisfied with the same, revision was preferred and the same was allowed in favour of the respondent against which present revision has been filed.
From perusal of the order passed by the revisional court, it is clear that at the time of seizure only about 16-17 pieces of stones were found in the truck and as per defence they were kept in order to support the goods carried in the truck.
In the considered view of this Court, the order impugned is well merited and no interference is called for in it.
Accordingly, revision stands dismissed.
(B.D. Rathi) Judge pd