This criminal revision was dismissed for filing beyond the limitation period. The condonation of delay application was rejected because the order sheet lacked evidence of service or notices and the counsel was absent.
Delay condonation application rejected; criminal revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 5 of 2002
Revisionist :- Saomendra Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- Distt. And Session Judge And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Case called out in the revised list. On one appears for the revisionist.
This criminal appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed, seeking condonation of delay.
This Court issued notices on the delay condonation application vide order dated 15.01.2002.
The order sheet does not indicate that the learned counsel for the revisionist has taken steps for service upon the opposite party no.2 nor there is any indication in the order sheet that notices have been issued on the delay condonation application. The counsel for the revisionist is also not present.
Consequently, the delay condonation application is rejected.
Since the delay condonation application has been rejected, the revision is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.7.2019 Pkb/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision should be allowed despite filing beyond the limitation period due to failed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
