OM PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 16-11-83 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 17-3-83 passed by S. D. M. Sadar, Muzaffarnagar under Section 107/16, Cr. P. C. and directing them to ex ecute personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety each in the like amount for main taining peace for a period of one year.

(2.) THE appellate court dismissed the appeal as time barred. THE learned Counsel for the revisionists Sri S. L. Saraff vehementally argued that the appellate court committed illegality in dismissing the appeal as time barred after hearing the Counsel for the parties on merits. I do not find any force in this contention. If a court finds that an appeal is time barred it is bound to dismiss it. It is the duty of the appellant to file an appeal within the time or to move an application under Section 5 and/or Section 14of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. From the appellate court's order it appears that the revisionists had initially preferred criminal revision on 22-4-83 challenging the order dated 17-3-83 passed by S. D. M. THEy were entitled to benefit of time spent in obtaining copy of the order. THE ap plication for copy was moved on 4-4-83 and it was prepared and notified on 6-4-83. Thus the revisionists were entitled to get benefit of three days, which were spent by them in obtaining the copy. Thus they should have filed the appeal by 21-4-83. THEy, however, filed the revision on 22-4-83. This revision was subsequently con verted into appeal by the revisionists. Though the revision was within time the appeal when converted into revision be came time barred as the limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days while the limita tion for filing revision is 90 days. On con version the revisionist should have filed an application supported by an affidavit to show that they preferred the revision either under erroneous legal advice or some other mistake committed in good faith. In absence of any material to indicate that the revision was bona fidefy filed the revisionists were not entitled to condona tion of delay. THErefore, the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge committed no il legality in dismissing the appeal as time barred. THE revisionists cannot take ad vantage of their negligence or inaction.

(3.) THE revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .