HARI SINGH Vs. PARBATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appln. in revn. by one Hari Singh against the judgment & order of the learned Ses. J. of Mahasu, dated 16-5-1950, dismissing his revn. against the judgment & order of a first class Mag. of Kasumpti, dated 16-12-1949, whereby the appln. of the resp. Mt. Parbati, the wife of the present appct. Under Section 488, Cr. P. C., was allowed, & she was granted a monthly allowance of RS. 60 by way of maintenance against the appct.

(2.) There was a preliminary objection taken on behalf of the resp. that the revn. was time-barred or was, in any case, unduly delayed. There is no limitation prescribed by law for the filing of a criminal revn. There is, however, no doubt that, except in exceptional cases, the filing of a criminal revn. should not be unduly delayed. The revn. of the appct. was dismissed by the Ses. J. on 16-5 Hari Singh vs. Mt. Parbati (03.04.1951 -HPHC) Page 2 of 3 1950. On 17-5-1950 the appct. applied for a copy of that judgment. The copy was ready on 80-5-1950 but it was not till 22-7-1950 that delivery of the copy was taken by him. Even after that the appct. waited for 28 days before he filed the present revn. on 19-8-1950. (After discussing the evidence, the judgment proceeded:) I therefore hold that the filing of the present appln. in revn.| was unduly delayed, & that no expln. worth the name for the delay has been offered.

(3.) It appears to me, however, that even a revn. filed with undue delay, & without any expln. for the delay, might be entertained if, on a consideration of the case on merits, it appears that there has been a failure of justice. That does not appear to be so in the present case.