DISTRICT MANAGER Vs. ANOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents were prosecuted under Section 406 read with section 34 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur that they have embezzled the paddy which was entrusted to them for shelling.

(2.) AFTER the trial, respondents were acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur vide order dated 14.2.2000. Aggrieved by that order, present criminal revision has been filed. Alongwith the revision, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condoning the delay of 296 days in filing the revision. It is pleaded that petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 14.2.2000 on the same day i.e. on 14.2.2000. The copy was prepared on 14.3.2000 and was delivered on 29.3.2000. The District Manager, MARKFED, Ferozepur wrote a letter Annexure P-1 to the Chief Manager (Law) MARKFED, Chandigarh enclosing the certified copy. On 17.5.2000, the Chief Manager (Law) wrote to the Director Prosecution to intimate whether an appeal has been filed or is being filed in this case. Vide letter dated 4.7.2000, Annexure P-2 the Director Prosecution informed the Chief Manager that such matters are decided at the level of District Attorney. On 6.9.2000 the District Manager also wrote a letter to the District Attorney for filing of the appeal but the same was returned for want of copy of judgment. On 19.9.2000 the District Manager again wrote to District Attorney and ultimately on 25.9.2000, it was informed to the District Manager that no appeal had been filed. The matter was processed in the office of MARKFED at Chandigarh and vide letter dated 1.1.2001, Shri H.S. Bakshi, Advocate was instructed to file the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner enquired from the petitioner what were the grounds for condonation of delay but same were not conveyed to him. A power of attorney was sent and then the documents followed vide letter dated 25.1.2001 vide Annexure P-8. On 1.2.2001, the MARKFED office again reminded the District Manager vide letter Annexure P-9 to send the information. Vide letter dated 9.2.2001, Annexure P-10, the District Manager sent power of attorney to the Chief Manager and asked him to explore the reasons of delay from his office at Chandigarh. On 22.2.2001, learned counsel for the petitioner wrote to the Chief District Manager (Law) to expedite the matter. On 20.3.2001, the District Manager sent the copies of documents. Then finally on 21.5.2001, Sh. Shiv Kumar, the Assistant Law Officer of MARKFED at Chandigarh had a meeting with the learned counsel for the petitioner and briefed him about the cause of delay. So in view of the averments made in the application, no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed as a result of which the criminal revision also stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.