DINESH SHARMA & ANR. Vs. BABULAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Crimial P.C. is barred by limitation of 987 days. An application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit of petitioner No. 1 Dinesh Sharma has been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 as also the Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.5.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Desuri (for short the trial Court. hereinafter).

(3.) In the application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, it has been stated that against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.5.2001, the petitioner-complainant filed criminal leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) Crimial P.C. before this Court on 5.11.2001 which came to be dismissed as being not maintainable by the complainant since it was a State case being State Vs. Babulal Criminal Case No. 1/1995 and therefore, the leave to appeal by complainant was not maintainable and accordingly it was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to file revision and thereafter the petitioners have filed the instant revision against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The application under Sec. 5 of the Act does not disclose the sufficient reasons which prevented the petitioners to file criminal revision well within the period of limitation. The petitioners have failed to explain sufficient reasons which prevented them to file revision petition within the period of limitation. In the circumstances therefore, there is no ground to condone the inordinate delay of 987 days in filing the instant revision petition. However, I have examined the case on merits also.