STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. P.K. BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE alleged perpetrators here are seemingly posing.... 'Look we are going astray, far of from the justice...don't chase and make futile attempt to reach us with your incurable intrinsic default in not obtaining the prosecution sanction, by preferring a misconceived revision petition against an order of discharge in place of a statutory appeal, and that too, time barred, without an application for condoning the delay, which you cannot repair the damage by preferring yet another ill -advised appeal against the obvious dismissal order, before this Court.'

(2.) THIS is an appeal presented as an application under Section 26 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation only) read with Section 378A(1) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the State of Arunachal Pradesh, against the order dated 18.5.2006, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro (hereinafter referred to as Deputy Commissioner in short) in criminal revision No. 03/05 corresponding to Ziro P.S. Case No. 48/2001 under Sections. 120B/408/420/409 of IPC.

(3.) THIS matter was heard earlier by a learned Single Bench of this Court and vide order dated 17.5.2007, granted leave for entertaining the instant appeal holding that the matter may be heard as to whether the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ziro, can be sustained on the basis of findings recorded therein and as to the application of Section 3 read with Article 131 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act to the matters covered by Regulation 28 of the Regulation. The question framed by the aforesaid learned Single Bench is whether Article 131 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act applies to the revision filed under Regulation 28 of the Regulation or Article 137 of the Limitation Act be applicable in the context of the provisions of Regulation. Accordingly, it was directed that the present appeal filed by the State be entertained as an appeal and heard on merit particularly in answering the question as to whether the impugned Judgment and Order dated 18.5.2006 could be sustained in law.