VIMAL KISHORE Vs. D D GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel/for the petitioner respondent No. 1 and learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 2.

(2.) BY this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the applicant/petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay in filing revision petition against the order dated December. 6, 1997 passed by the learned Special Judge. Solan whereby the non -applicant/respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 13(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) THE case of the applicant/petitioner in explaining the delay as made out in the application is that he was not aware of the judgment dated December 6, 1997 regarding acquittal of the respondent by the learned Special Judge till he received summons in D.D. Gautwn v. Vimal Kishore1. pending before the learned District Judge. Solan. The summons in the suit were received by him on March 1, 1999 and then he came to know from the copy of the plaint that the respondent has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge on December 6, 1997. He then made enquiries at his own level regarding filing of the appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal and applied for certified copy of the judgment of acquittal on March 10, 1999 which was delivered to him on March 22, 1999. He applied to the District. Magistrate on March 11, 1999 to grant him the certificate as to whether the State had filed any appeal against the acquittal or not. He received a communication from the Additional District Magistrate concerned which is dated April 19, 1999 that though filing of the appeal was recommended by the District Attorney (Vigilance) yet no such appeal was finally preferred by the State. It is further claimed that on coming to know of non filing of the appeal by the State, the applicant/petitioner took immediate steps and filed the revision petition on April 26, 1999. It is, thus claimed that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither intentional nor wilful on the part of the applicant/petitioner and that he was not to gain anything by delaying the filing of the revision petition and that the judgment sought to be impugned by the revision petition, has arisen out of a State case and the applicant remained under bonafide belief that the State would file an appeal against the impugned judgment, more particularly, when the case was of accepting illegal gratification by a public servant.