RAM SARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. D. Shahi, J. This revision has been directed against the order dated 12-11-1991, passed by Sri Dineh Mohan, Illrd Addition al Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 64/12 of 1991-Ram Saran Das v. State of U. P. and seven others, rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitaiion Act.

(2.) THE revisionist has filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned Munsif Magistrate-I, Kairana, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 427/34, I. P. C. against the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. THE witnesses were examined in the complaint and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 11-4-1989, and summoned the accused persons under Sections 323,324,504,506 and 427, I. P. C. In his order the learned Magistrate wrote as under: "case called out, complainant is present. I perused the records and heard the arguments. I am of the opinion that prima facie offence under Sections 323, 324,504,506 and 427, I. P. C. against the accused Nos. 1 to 7. Let the accused Nos. 1 to 7 be summoned under Sections 323,324,504,506 and 427, I. P. C. for appearance on 22-5-1989. "

(3.) AS regards the condonation of delay,there was an order of 24-7-90, that was the main order. After the order dated 24-7-90 was passed, on 25-7-90, the revisionist Ram Saran moved an application praying for summoning the doctor for evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and then summoning the accused persons. The order of the learned Sessions Judge specifically shows that when the application dated 25- 7-90 was moved for summoning the doctor, the clerk of the Court appended a note that the com plaint case has already been decided on 24-7-90 in accordance with the order in the criminal revision. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the revisionist or his Counsel did not know about the main order dated 24-7-90. There is specific finding of the learned Sessions Judge that there is a glaring negligence of the revisionist which cannot be said to be reasonable or bonafide. This is a finding of fact and cannot be assailed in a revision. The learned Sessions Judge has given a very detailed order appreciating the facts of the case and the relevant law on the subject and has then rejected the applica tion. I find no illegality or any irregularity in the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The revisionist has himself slept over the matter. There was total negligence and the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.