DHAN SINGH Vs. RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 331 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dtd. 21/12/2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal dismissing the appeal preferred by the applicantpetitioner against the judgment and order of conviction dtd. 28/4/2016/2/5/2016 of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hodal whereby respondent Nos.1 and 2 (herein) were convicted for the offences under Ss. 323 and 324 read with Sec. 34 IPC and were acquitted of the offence under Sec. 326 IPC. The applicant-petitioner, by way of instant revision petition, impugns the abovesaid two judgments to the extent of acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Sec. 326 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 331 days, has argued that the delay has occurred on account of the applicant-petitioner's poverty and his consequent inability to arrange the funds for filing the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has further submitted that an application for condonation of delay ought to be considered liberally, particularly, where the applicant-petitioner has good case on merits. On these submissions, condonation of delay of 331 days in filing the revision petition has been sought. It has been further contended that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents in case the instant application is allowed and the instant revision petition is heard on merits. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has further argued that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate and hence delay deserves to be condoned.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and have perused the paper-book.