Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 11 August, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.19748 of 2014 in CRR No.1992 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.19748 of 2014 in
CRR No.1992 of 2014
Date of Decision:-11.8.2014
Ajay Kumar Gupta .....Petitioner-appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Angel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner-appellant.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
The crux of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for condonation of delay of 2492 days (more than 6¾ years) in filing the revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, a criminal case was registered against accused Sunil Gupta s/o late Baij Nath Gupta and his wife Renu Gupta (respondents No.2 and 3), vide FIR No.312 dated 7.12.2004, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 406, 408, 420 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar.
2. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the respondents-accused. They were accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable u/ss 420 and 120-B IPC, by means of order dated 4.11.2006 by the trial Magistrate.
ARVIND SHARMA2014.08.12 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19748 of 2014 in CRR No.1992 of 2014 2
3. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the respondents-accused was accepted by the revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge), by way of impugned judgment dated 23.4.2007, which, in substance, inter alia, is as under (para 5):-
"It is also evident that no effort was made by the complainant to procure no objection certificate from the Bank. It was accused Sunil Gupta, who paid Rs.2,80,000/- to the Bank alongwith Vinod Gupta, brother of the complainant, who also paid 50% of the amount lie, after paying total amount of Rs.5,60,000/-. No objection certificate was obtained Vinod Gupta, in his statement made before the police on 8.9.04, has admitted that this amount of Rs.2,80,000/- which has been paid by Sunil Gupta, was required to be paid by the complainant Ajay Gupta. There is certificate of Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Branch, Jalandhar City, dated 27.9.01 addressed to Vinod Gupta, wherein, acceptance has been given to receive a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- against the total outstanding amount Rs.19,24,884,52 Ps as on 8.9.2001. This shows that not even a slightest effort was made by the complainant to procure No Objection Certificate from the Bank neither the complainant paid even a single penny to the Bank for redeeming the property from the Bank. If the purchaser had violated any terms and condition of the agreement to sell dated 14.2.07 as alleged by the complainant, then he was required to have cancelled the agreement but nothing was done by him, which also indirectly goes to prove that execution of the sale is shrouded by mysterious circumstances. The said agreement was never extended from 24.2.97 for the purpose of sale deed. If the General Power of attorney was got executed by the accused in his favour by inducement then why the complainant did not cancel the same, though, he had ample time to do so. There is no any explanation as to why the complainant remained mum from 17.9.01 when the sale deed was executed till July, 2004 when the complaint has been filed. No explanation is there as to why the complainant is silent about the fact his share liability with the Bank was paid of by the accused. It is also a fact that the complainant has filed civil suit for the recovery of Rs.3,25,000/-. In all, three statements recorded by the police, the complainant, has stressed only for the recovery of Rs.3,25,000/-. Absolutely, not even an iota of evidence is there that any sort of inducement or cheating was done by the accused or any conspiracy was hatched in between them to deceive the complainant. It is civil liability for which a civil suit for the recovery of the amount has already been filed by the complainant. Absolutely, no any offence Under Sections 420/120-B IPC is made out. The impugned order on the face of it does not stand the test of legality. The ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.12 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19748 of 2014 in CRR No.1992 of 2014 3 same is set aside and the accused stand acquitted of the charges. Lower Court record be sent back forthwith. File be consigned."
4. Sequelly, the petitioner-complainant did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to challenge the indicated impugned order, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 2492 days in filing the same, inter- alia pleading that Registry raised some objections and returned the petition. Thereafter, due to change of office of the Advocate, the paper book of the petition was misplaced.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
6. As is evident from the record, that in the present case, the only ground mentioned in the application is that the delay occurred on account of change of office of the counsel for the petitioner. The application is as vague as anything. When the instant petition was filed, how, when and in what manner it was returned by the Registry, when & where the office of counsel for petitioner was shifted etc., remained unfolded mystery. It is now well settled proposition of law that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to explain each day's delay in this regard. He was required to be more vigilant in criminal cases. Such inordinate & un- explained delay cannot be condoned in a routine manner without any sufficient cause/material, as contemplated u/s 5 of The Limitation Act. Therefore, to me, no ground, muchless cogent, to condone the inordinate and unexplained delay of 2492 days (more than 6¾ years) in filing the revision petition is made out and the present petition deserves to be dismissed, in the obtaining ARVIND SHARMA 2014.08.12 10:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.19748 of 2014 in CRR No.1992 of 2014 4 circumstances of the case.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for condonation of inordinate delay of 2492 days in filing the revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. Consequently, the main revision petition is also dismissed as time barred.
Sd/-
11.8.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
ARVIND SHARMA
2014.08.12 10:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh