JAI RAM Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARBHAJAN Singh respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner Jai Ram and others. It pertained to offences punishable under Sections 323/506/307/342/506/148 and 149 I.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate on 31.7.1991 closed the evidence of petitioner and others. A revision petition was filed in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and permitted two more opportunities to the complainant respondents to produce the evidence. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) ALONG with the petition an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act had been preferred for condonation of delay in filing of the revision petition. It has been contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had set aside the order whereby the petitioner had been discharged. The petitioner came to know about the said order on 5.11.1995. He got the file inspected and thereafter filed the present revision petition. There is delay of 162 days which should be condoned.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition seeking condonation of delay had been issued to petition Harbhajan Singh who contested the same. It was pointed that notice was issued on six occasions but the petitioner was avoiding to receive the said notice. It was contended that petitioner does not reveal as to how he came to know about the order dated 5.11.1995. He was always aware of the proceedings before the Court of Sessions.