Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharminder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2022
CRR-2582-2022 (O&M) -1-
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-2582-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.11.2022
DHARMINDER SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Vipul Babuta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
CRM-45549-2022
The applicant/petitioner through instant application is
seeking condonation of delay of 1501 days in filing revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
there is delay of 1501 days in filing the revision petition which has
occurred due to lack of knowledge. The petitioner was never advised of
filing revision petition and he was informed that order would be
challenged before learned Sessions Judge. The delay is neither
intentional nor deliberate.
From the perusal of the record and arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, it comes out that the petitioner was awarded
sentence of two years by trial Court vide judgment and order dated
11.08.2016. The petitioner preferred an appeal before Sessions Court,
which came to be dismissed by ASJ, Gurdaspur vide order dated
23.12.2016. The petitioner at the time of dismissal of appeal opted to
1 of 3
CRR-2582-2022 (O&M) -2-
remain absent and appellate Court left with no other option adjudicated
the matter in the absence of petitioner, thus, petitioner was not taken into
custody at the time of pronouncement of order.
The petitioner was arrested on 16.04.2018 and produced
before CJM, however, he was released on the ground of doubt of
identity. The petitioner was again arrested on 28.07.2022 produced
before Trial Court, and since then is in custody.
The petitioner is seeking condonation of delay on the sole
ground that his counsel did not apprise him of his right to file revision
petition before this Court.
The petitioner opted to abstain from Appellate Court when
final order was going to be passed. He did not disclose his identity when
he was arrested on 16.04.2018. He opted to remain silent when Trial
Court released him on 16.04.2018, on the sole ground of doubt. Conduct
of petitioner itself speaks loudly. He is taking law as granted. He has no
respect to Court of Justice and rule of law. He does not deserve leniency.
There is long delay and reason advanced is lame excuse. As there is no
reasonable explanation for delay, the application seeking condonation of
delay deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently,
main petition is dismissed.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
29.11.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
2 of 3
CRR-2582-2022 (O&M) -3-
3 of 3
