BHIMRAO PANDURANG ZILE Vs. MANDA BHIMRAO ZILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for seeking to quash an order dated 22-2-2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 56/2000 as well as order dated 26-4-2002 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Application No. 1503/ 2001 refusing to condone 77 days delay in filing of the revision.

(2.) I have heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. It appears that the case of the applicant in so far as the delay of 77 days is concerned, was that after passing of the order by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 22-2-2001, he had instructed his Advocate Shri Murti to apply for the certified copy of the order. That in April, 2001 he changed his Advocate and engaged Shri a. K. Choube as his Advocate and all the papers were collected and given to him. Since at the time of collecting the papers, certified copy of the order was not received, a fresh application for grant of certified copy had been made on 13-6-2001. The certified copy was ultimately received on -26-6-2001. However, within three days the present applicant was transferred to Nanded. There he was engaged in taking admission for his children in the school and his children were also sick, and therefore, he could. give instruction to his counsel on 14-8-2001. The revision application came to be filed on 16-8-2001 alongwith the application for condonation of delay.

(3.) I find that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, certain wrong dates have been mentioned in the impugned orders and the court has assumed that certified copy was received on 16-6-2001 and observed that no steps were taken up to 26-6-2001. These observations are incorrect. In fact, the certified copies were received on 26-6-2001 and on 29-6-2001, the applicant was admittedly transferred to Nanded. I find that therefore, the order is passed on an erroneous basis. There is sufficient explanation given by the applicant explaining 77 days delay in filing of the revision. I am, therefore inclined to allow this application to the limited extent of setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Court on 26-4-2002 refusing the condone the delay.