Dismissed¶23

Maheshwari Rishideo @ Maheshwari Rishidev @ Maheshwari @ Maheshwari Rishi v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Feb 2025CR. REV./484/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 615 days' delay; criminal revision; Patna High Court; CRIMINAL REVISION No.484 of 2024; Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2014; Additional Sessions Judge-IV Araria; conviction and sentence; PS Case 116/1999 Raniganj Araria; insufficient cause; free copy of judgment to convict; jail warrant; arrest 12.08.2023; Maheshwari Rishideo v. State of Bihar; I.A. No. 1 of 2024 dismissed; decision 04-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Having heard the petitioner's advocate and perused the petition, the Court is not satisfied with the grounds mentioned in the condonation application. ¶16

Maheshwari Rishideo @ Maheshwari Rishidev @ Maheshwari @ Maheshwari Rishi Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 615 days in filing the criminal revision against the appellate order dated 06 July 2022 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Having heard the petitioner's advocate and perused the petition, the Court is not satisfied with the grounds mentioned in the condonation application.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

A person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment is supplied a copy of the judgment free of cost, served to enable him to take steps before the higher court.

¶16

Key takeaways

A person cannot be sent to the correctional home without a jail warrant and a copy of the judgment upon conviction; hence the plea that the petitioner was never served with the appellate judgment copy is untenable.ratio¶18
Although the petitioner learnt of the sentence on the date of his arrest, he spent more than a year thereafter without taking any legal step.ratio¶18
Leniency in dealing with applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not mean that every such application is to be allowed without ascertaining whether the reasons advanced are cogent.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J), CRIMINAL REVISION No.484 of 2024, decided 04-02-2025: An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 615-day delay in filing a criminal revision against the conviction-and-sentence order dated 06.07.2022 of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Araria in Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2014 (arising out of PS Case No. 116 of 1999, Raniganj, Araria) is rejected for want of cogent grounds. The petitioner, a labourer working outside Bihar, pleaded ignorance of the appellate judgment until his arrest on 12.08.2023; the Court held that a convict is supplied a free copy of the judgment and cannot be lodged in a correctional home without a jail warrant and judgment copy, and that the petitioner took no legal step for over a year after learning of the sentence. Leniency under Section 5 does not obviate scrutiny of the cogency of the reasons. Consequent on dismissal of I.A. No. 1 of 2024, the criminal revision stands dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.484 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-1999 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria

¶3

====================================================== Maheshwari Rishideo @ Maheshwari Rishidev @ Maheshwari @ Maheshwari Rishi

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 04-02-2025

¶11

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the

¶12

Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay. The petition is taken up for hearing.

¶13

The instant application has been filed praying for condonation of delay by 615 days in filing the criminal revision against the order dated 06^th July 2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Araria in Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2014. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is a poor labourer working outside the State for his livelihood. He was not aware about the judgment passed on 06^th July 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 08 of 2014 and when the police arrested the petitioner on 12^th August 2023, he came to know about the facts of the case. Thereafter, the son of the petitioner who also used to reside outside the State for livelihood, came to his village and handed

¶14

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.484 of 2024(2) dt.04-02-2025 2/3

¶15

over the documents relating to the case to the learned Advocate for the appellant on 1^st June 2024 and subsequently, the revisional application was filed on 7^th June 2024.

¶16

Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the petition, this Court is not at all satisfied about the grounds mentioned in the petition. Whenever a person is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment he is supplied with a copy of the judgment free of cost. The judgment was served to enable him to take step before the Higher Court.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that when the appellate court passed the order he was not present in the court and he was outside the State. Subsequently, when he was arrested to suffer conviction, he was not served with a copy of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the appellate court.

¶18

In the considered view of the Court, this cannot happen because a person cannot be sent to the correctional home without jail warrant and the copy of the judgment when he is convicted in a case. On the date of arrest, the petitioner, of course, came to know about the sentence. Even after that he spent more than a year without taking any legal step.

¶19

This Court is not unmindful to note that an

¶20

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.484 of 2024(2) dt.04-02-2025 3/3

¶21

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to be disposed of taking into a lenient view. But, leniency does not mean that whenever an application under Section 5 would be filed, it is to be allowed without ascertaining the reason as to whether the same is cogent or not.

¶22

In view of such circumstances, and for the reasons state above, I do not find any merit in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the application is rejected, I.A. No. 1 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶23

In view of dismissal of the I.A. No. 1 of 2024, the Cr. Revision is also treated to be dismissed.

¶24

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶25

Suraj Dubey/-

¶26

U T

Maheshwari Rishideo @ Maheshwari Rishidev @ Maheshwari @ Maheshwari Rishi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshwari Rishideo @ Maheshwari Rishidev @ Maheshwari @ Maheshwari Rishi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Yadav @ Pandav Yadav @ Pandav Kumar@ Vishal Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Thakur @ Rupesh Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Kishore Vs The State of Bihar

Banti Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Dilkhush Kumar @ Bhajan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jakir Hussain Vs the State of Bihar