DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay in filing revision mainly on the ground that one Ram Kishan lodged a report on 20-11-1985 at 7. 15 a. m. at P. S. Sadar Bazar, district Mathura, under Sections 147,148,307 and 3021. P. C. regarding an incident which took place on the same date at about 6. 00 a. m. in village Damodar Pura. On the basis of above report a case at crime No. 194 of 1985 was registered. Regarding same incident one Sita Ram also lodged a report at 8. 15 a. m. on same day, on the basis of which a case at crime No. 195-A of 1985 was registered. Under the order of the Chief Minister of U. P. the case was investigated by CBCID and the after investigation final report was sub mitted on 6-8-1987. The above final report was placed before C. J. M. , Mathura, who issued notice to the complainant. The complainant appeared and filed protest petition. The learned C. J. M. rejected the protest petition and accepted final report by his order dated 30-6-1987.

(2.) AGGRIEVED with the above order the complainant preferred revision in this Court bearing Criminal Revision No. 1069 of 1987. Subsequently, another Revision NO 1559 of 1987 was also filed. Suppress ing the fact that revision against the accep tance of the final report was pending the complainant filed a complaint before the CJ. M. Mathura. Who fixed date for state ment of complainant under Section 200 Cr. P. C The complainant died and his statement under Section 200 Cr. PC. could not be recorded. Other witnesses were examined under Section 292 Cr. PC. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the statement of the witnesses took cognizance and issued sum mon against the applicant, which was without jurisdiction and against the provisions of Sec tion 202 Cr. P. C. The applicant had no knowledge of the filing of the complaint and issuance of summons against him. The applicant came to know about the com plaint only on 5-8-2000 when the police arrested co-accused Ram Karan, Raj Veer and Sumery. Therefore, the delay in filing revision is to be condoned.