Disposed¶16

Naresh Kumar @ Banti v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Jul 2025CRMPM/1105/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; nine days' delay; criminal revision; sufficient cause; winter vacation; certified copy delay; negligence; Additional Sessions Judge Nahan; Naresh Kumar @ Banti v. State of H.P.; Cr.MP(M) No. 1105 of 2025; decided 09.7.2025; Rakesh Kainthla, Judge; delay condoned; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Nine days' delay in filing the revision petition condoned; the application stands disposed of. ¶16

Why is it important?

Naresh Kumar @ Banti Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Naresh Kumar @ Banti Vs. State of H.P.

¶2

Cr. MP(M) No. 1105 of 2025 Reserved on: 3.7.2025

¶3

09.7.2025

¶4

Present : Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

¶6

Cr.MP(M) No. 1105 of 2025

¶7

The present application has been filed for condonation of nine days’ delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant visited the office of the learned counsel in the second week of March, 2025 and was informed about the dismissal of the appeal. He was advised to prefer the revision petition before this Court and collect the entire case file. He applied for a certified copy on 20.3.2025, which was delivered to him on 9.4.2025. He visited the office of the learned counsel on 18.4.2025, and the revision was filed on 21.4.2025. The Registry objected that the petition was barred by 09 days. Hence the application.

¶8

The application is opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding maintainability, and the application not disclosing any sufficient cause. The contents of the application were denied on merits. It was asserted that no sufficient reason has been assigned for condoning the delay. The fact that objections were raised on

¶9

25.4.2025 and the action was taken on 6.5.2025 shows the negligence of the applicant/petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶10

I have heard Mr. Sanjay Ranta, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondentState.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Ranta, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the matter could not be filed earlier because the time was taken in obtaining the copies. The revision was prepared and drafted thereafter. Hence, he prayed that the delay in filing the revision be condoned.

¶12

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that each day’s delay has not been explained. The applicant was negligent in not preferring the revision within time. Hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.

¶13

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶14

The applicant had preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan, where his presence was not required on every date of hearing. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant was informed

¶15

about the dismissal of the appeal. The matter was decided on 15.1.2025, and the Courts were closed for winter vacation in January and February; therefore, the applicant cannot be faulted for not contacting the counsel during the holidays. Hence, the delay in approaching learned counsel and thereafter getting the documents cannot be said to be deliberate. As per the record, there is a delay of 09 days, which is not significant. Hence, the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned.

¶16