STATE Vs. AHMED JAAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.P.No.356/2004) on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition.

(3.) Factual position as highlighted by the appellant is as follows : The respondent, who is a resident of Jammu and Kashmir, was apprehended at Sheila Cinema in Delhi on 05-03-1997 on the basis of information that he belongs to a terrorist outfit "Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen" (TUM) of JandK. From a search of his person and his hotel room, a letter containing instructions regarding activities to be carried out in Delhi for collecting money and arms for freedom of Kashmir was recovered. The letter contained coded information regarding RDX and Grenades as ATTA and ANAR and was allegedly written by one Abu Ibrahim. A personal diary containing telephone numbers of Pakistan and a sum of Rs.30,000/- suspected to be Hawala money were also recovered from the respondent. It was found that the respondent had been frequently coming to Delhi and stayed at Welcome Guest House and used to make telephone calls to his contacts in Pakistan and collected money in Delhi which he used to transfer to Srinagar through carpet dealers at Kashmir and Commission agents for goats and thus, he actually got transferred Rs.17-1/4 lacs through Ghayasuddin and Mohd. Ahad of Srinagar. The respondent was charge sheeted under Sections 121/121A/122/124-A/120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) on the above allegations of being a member of TUM and for conspiring in waging war against the Government of India. The respondent was thereafter tried in the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.7/98. By order dated 30-10-1998 in Sessions Case No.7/98, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused at the threshold, holding that prima facie there was no legal evidence to show that the respondent has committed any of the alleged acts. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision Petition 356/2004, along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the petition. After filing the revision petition, the Registry of the High Court raised certain objections, and the file was received back in the Department for curing the defects. Unfortunately, due to pau city of space, the file got mixed up with other files in the office of the Standing Counsel, and was traced only in June, 2003. The revision petition was thereafter re-filed along with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing. The High Court dismissed Crl. Rev. Petition No.356/2004 and Crl. M.A. No. 5227/2004 by judgment dated 10-8-2005, being of the view that there was unex plained delay in filing and re-filing the revision petition.