DEVI SAHAI Vs. MAHABIR PRASHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAHABIR Prasad-respondent had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners. It was alleged that he is the owner of property bearing No. MEP 1980, 1981, 1978 and 1979 situated at Narnaul. He had purchased it vide two registered sale deeds dated 28.9.1976 and that he alongwith his wife Smt. Bimla are residing therein. Respondent further alleged that there was some dispute between him and the petitioners. Regarding it a compromise was effected. On 9.10.1994 at about 10.00 A.M. the respondent and his sons Niraj Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar were taken to police station Sadar, Narnaul. They were made to sit there. In their absence the petitioner with help of the police, demolished the southern wall of his house as well as the tin shed constructed by him. 12 tin sheets, 3 bamboos and 7 ballies besides the electric meter of the respondent were taken by the petitioners. They dismantled the electric fitting of the house. It is also the case of the respondent that he and the aforesaid two sons were made to sit in the police station for 26 hours illegally and thereafter they were released from custody. They were told that sons of Harparshad had taken possession of the properties. If they took any action, they would be kept in custody throughout the life.

(2.) THE learned trial court recorded the preliminary evidence. After considering the same, the trial court held that no prima facie case was drawn. The complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same a revision petition was filed in the Court of Sessions. On 4.7.1996 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul set aside the order of the trial court and held that from the preliminary evidence produced, prima facie case with respect to offences punishable under Sections 148/452/427/149 and 380/149 IPC was made out. The respondent was directed to appear before the trial court on 11.7.1996. It is a common case that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed the revision petition without issuing notice to the petitioners.

(3.) THE said petition has been accompanied by an application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The petitioners contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition on 4.7.1996. They were under a bona fide belief that period of 90 days would start from the date on which summons would be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul. Summons were issued on 25.12.1996 for 12.2.1997. The petitioners calculated the period of limitation from 7.2.1997. By this mistake delay of 111 days occurred. It was prayed that the same may be condoned.