Divisional Forest Officer vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 821 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  IA No.1/2023 (Delay Condonation Application)
                                  In
                                  CRLR No.38 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. Shubham Pandey, Advocate for the revisionists.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

The revisionists propose to challenge the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 15.04.2015, passed in Criminal Case No. 419 of 2014, Divisional Forest Officer vs. Satveer and others, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital. By it, the revisionists have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 2 (16

(a), (b), 35), 9, 27, 30, 31, 38V (4-1), 39, 50 & 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 24.11.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2015, Gurdev Singh and others vs. State and another and connected matter, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital. By it, the appeal has been dismissed.

The revision is delayed by 04 years 307 days. The State was required to file objections. Objections have not been filed.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the State may be granted time to file objections because it is a delayed revision for more than five years.

Heard on delay condonation application.

Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that revisionists were labourers; they could not contact their lawyers; they were working in Andhra Pradesh; during covid they surrendered, but they were not taken into custody by the concerned court. Subsequently, they again surrendered on 21.11.2022.

It is argued that in that process, delay in filing the revision has taken place.

Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a delay for more than five years. Delay has not been explained.

What the revisionists propose is to challenge their conviction and sentence. It is a case of the revisionists that they were labourers and they were working in some other State.

Having considered, this Court is of the view that this matter should be heard on merits. The Delay in filing the revision is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.

As the Court proceeded to hear on admission, learned counsel for the revisionists seek time.

List this matter on 28.03.2023.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.03.2023

AK