FURKAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revisionist is a convict for commission of the offence under Section 500 I.P.C., which stood adjudicated against him by the judgment dated 11th March, 2015, as rendered by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nainital in Criminal Complaint Case No. 523 of 2013, Dr. Sahraj Ali Vs. Khurshid and another. As a consequence of the order of conviction, the revisionist has been directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months. This order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015, was challenged in an Appeal by the revisionist, which was filed at a belated stage along with the delay condonation application seeking condonation of four years four months and 24 days delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Nainital by the impugned order dated 9th August, 2019, and as a consequence thereto, the Appeal preferred by revisionist against the order of conviction for the offence under Section 500 IPC too stood dismissed affirming the judgment dated 11th March, 2015. In the Revision, the challenge is given by the revisionist to the order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015 as well as the order of 9th August, 2019, as passed by the Sessions Court in Misc. Case No. 94 of 2019, Khurshid and another Vs. State and others, whereby the delay condonation application of the revisionist was rejected and as a consequence thereto the appeal also stood dismissed.

(2.) The registry has reported that there is a delay of 1534 days in filing the Revision, but, the fact remains that the delay is not being determined by the registry from the date of rejection of the delay condonation application, rather from the date of conviction by the Trial Court, i.e. 11.03.2015. The revision, itself, which was preferred by the revisionist on 21st August, 2019 would be otherwise well within the limitation, but, from the report, it seems that since the challenge has also been given by the revisionist to the order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015, the delay has been computed by the Registry from the date of the principal order of conviction as rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in the Complaint Case No. 523 of 2013.

(3.) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the delay, if at all, which is to be considered for the purposes of filing the present revision, rationally, it ought to have been considered as on the date when the delay condonation application of the revisionist stood rejected, i.e. 9th August, 2019, because rightly or wrongly he was having his recourse exhausted, which was otherwise also available to him under law before the Sessions Court. Thus, in fact, the delay, which has been determined by the registry is, in fact, if it is computed from the date of the order, i.e. 9th August, 2019, rejecting the delay, the delay as reported by the Registry could be said that it has been wrongly reported to be of 1534 days.