JAIRAJ PRASAD SHAW Vs. OM PROKASH SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant in Case No.C228/73 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Upon his complaint filed on 26.3.74 against the opposite party, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant, and ordered an inquiry presumably under section 202 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure and wanted a report of the inquiry to be submitted by 11.4.74. On 10.4.74 one of the persons named as accused in the petition of complaint, entered appearance and made a prayer. Inquiry report was also available on that date. On 11.4.74 the complainant filed a petition praying for a judicial inquiry. The learned Magistrate heard not only the complainant's Advocate, but also the appearing opposite party's Advocate and made the following order:

(2.) The complainant filed an application in revision on19.7.74 for setting aside the learned Magistrate's order dated 11.4.74. He has simultaneously filed a petition under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act giving rise to this Crl. Misc.Case. He states that his revisional application is late by five days; that the said delay may be condoned as the learned Advocate in the Magistrate's court informed him that the application would be within time if filed by 20.7.74 and that acting on his advice he made over the certified copy of the order to his Advocate in this court on 17.7.74, the learned Advocate prepared the revisional application on 18.7.74 and filed it on 19.7.74.

(3.) At the hearing Mr. Dasgupta Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the revisional application is within time and that there is no delay which requires condonation. The petitioner filed his application for copy of the order dated 1.4.74 on that date. The office notified that the folios required for the purpose were to be filed by 13.4.74. The petitioner filed those on 18.4.74. Office took two days' time to prepare the copy. The office made the copy ready on 20.4.74. The petitioner took delivery of the copy on 20.4.74. Mr. Dutta submits that he was entitled for computation of the period of limitation, which is 90 days, to exclude 9 days i.e. the period from 11.4.74 to 20.4.74. Under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 ?the time requisite for obtaining a copy? of the order sought to be revised is excluded in computation of the period of limitation. What is the meaning of the words ?time requisite for obtaining a copy?? These words mean the ?time beyond the petitioner's control occupied by the Copying Department after an application for copy has been duly made, and not an ideally short period within which the department could have prepared it.? Any failure in reasonable diligence which produces unnecessary delay at one or more of the several stages in obtaining a copy of the order will disentitle the petitioner to claim the whole of the time actually spent in obtaining the copy. The time ?unnecessarily occupied? is not the ?time requisite? within the meaning of the section. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Sarat v. Upendra.