RAM PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. There is uncontroverted affidavit that the summoning order became known to the revisionist only in August, 1990 and immediately after that they filed petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which was dismissed on 18-1-1991, on the ground that the summoning order is revisable. The time devoted to other proceeding, which was dismissed on technical ground, has to be excluded in calculating limitation. From the date of knowledge the revision is within limitation. Absence of knowledge is good ground for condoning delay. Hence I condone delay arid allow the application of the revisionists.

(2.) THEN the revision itself has to be taken up for admission. After investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 468, I P. C. was submitted to the Magistrate against the revisionist and one other person. This charge-sheet came before the Magistrate on 26th April, 1989, when the Magis-strate passed order: Charge sheet prapt hokar adesh hue panjikrit he kagajat nakal main bheja jai tatha bad ane nakal pesh ho. " On 31st July, 1989 copies were ready then the Magistrate passed order, "nakal shamil misil ki jai 13-10- 89 ke leye summon jari ho. "