Union Of India Represented By ... vs Sabir Ahamad
2022 Latest Caselaw 326 Mani

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 326 Mani
Judgement Date : 28 July, 2022

Manipur High Court

Union Of India Represented By ... vs Sabir Ahamad on 28 July, 2022

NINGOM Digitally  signed
         by NINGOMBAM
BAM      VICTORIA
         Date: 2022.07.29
                                                                                            Item No. 25
VICTORIA 10:26:26 +05'30'
                                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                                    AT IMPHAL

                                              MC(Crl.Rev.P.) No. 3 of 2022
                              Union of India represented by Assistant Commissioner,
                              Customs Division, HL Songate, aged about 58 years of
                              Sangakpham, Opposite DAV Public School, P.O. Imphal, P.S.
                              Heingang, District - Imphal East, Manipur - 795010.
                                                                      ...Applicant/Petitioner
                                                           - Versus -
                              1. Sabir Ahamad, aged about 23 years, s/o Tura Ali, resident of
                                 near Lilong College, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District - I/E,
                                 Manipur - 795130.
                              2. Rafijuddin, aged about 28 years, s/o Md. Hafijuddin, resident
                                 of Lilong Chaobak Mairenkhun, P.O. & P.S. Lilong, District -
                                 Thoubal, Manipur - 795103.
                                                                            ...Respondents

                                                B EF O R E
                                HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

                                                        ORDER

28-07-2022

By way of this miscellaneous case, the Union of India seeks condonation of ninety-eight days delay in filing a revision against the judgment and order dated 02-11-2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel, in Cril. (C) Case No. 10 of 2019.

Despite service of notice, neither of the respondents has chosen to enter appearance before this Court.

Sufficient cause for the delay has been set out in paras 5 & 7 of the petition. Accepting the same, the delay is condoned.

Registry is directed to number the criminal revision petition, if it is otherwise found to be in order, and list the same for admission.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Victoria