Uttarakhand High Court
Arvind Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivekbharti Sharma
2024:UHC:7432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 707 of 2024
Arvind Kumar .........revisionist
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Amanjot Singh Chaddha proxy counsel for Mr. Aditya Singh, counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General along with Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder
for the State.
Dated : 03.10.2024
Hon'ble Justice VivekBharti Sharma, J.
The present criminal revision is filed by the revisionist
against the orders dated 01.11.2023 and 08.06.2023 passed by the
court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/VIth Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.1438 of 2022.
2. There is delay of 243 days in filing the present criminal
revision.
3. A Delay Condonation Application along with the affidavit
of the revisionist/applicant is filed with the averments that the
revisionist has not filed the present revision within limitation
prescribed due to the reason that prior to filing of the present criminal
revision, the revisionist filed a petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
which was dismissed on 03.09.2024, thus, he prayed that the delay of
243 days in filing the revision may graciously be condoned.
4. State Counsel would vehemently oppose the delay
condonation application by submitting that the revisionist/applicant
has not taken any ground in the delay condonation application except
the reason that the revisionist had filed the petition under Section 528
of B.N.S.S.; that, the order of dismissal of the said petition has not
also been annexed with this revision, therefore, it seems that the said
2024:UHC:7432
petition has been filed by the revisionist/applicant just to create a
ground for condonation of delay that otherwise does not exist, and,
mislead the Court; that, as such no other satisfactory or reasonable
explanation is given in the application for condoning the inordinate
delay.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgment has held
that only if the reasons are genuine and acceptable, then alone, delay
are to be condoned and not otherwise. The delay cannot be condoned
in a routine affair. A person, who is not vigilant enough, is not entitled
for the relief after a prolonged period. It is well considered principle
of law that while condoning the delay, the Courts have to consider the
genuinity of the reasons furnished by the person seeking condonation
of delay.
It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner under Section
528 B.N.S.S. was filed much after the expiring of the period of
limitation to file the revisionist against the impugned order. This fact
also gives reasons to believe that petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
was filed for creating a sham ground for condonation of delay.
6. In view of the fact that the revisionist/applicant could not
establish any sufficient reason for condoning the huge delay of 243
days. Hence, this Court is not inclined to consider the delay
condonation application. The delay condonation application (IA 1 of
2024) is hereby rejected.
7. Consequently, the present criminal revision also stands
dismissed.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
03.10.2024
Mamta
MA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=9f3ef5e40c788130
2fcda45af446d3419e6d6e9
90fbd25a59bdb957bba484
d0d, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=5DE1751A4F
RANI
1D9CABFD54852C9E68911
CA8B66DD26690A191648A
B5D8DD004EF0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2024.10.04 16:37:06
+05'30'
