VISHNU SWAROOP DUBEY Vs. GEETA DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is barred by period of limitation. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after taking the cognizance of offence by the trial court, a notice was served on the petitioner for 12.10.2004. Thereafter the copy of the order dated 11.3.2004 was applied for which according to learned counsel was received on 14.1.2005.

(3.) From the certified copy of the order impugned, it does not appear that the copy was delivered on 14.1.2005. There could be no reason to supply the copy of the order dated 11.3.2004, if applied in the month of October 2004, on 14.1.2005. At any rate, the averments made in the application do not find support from the order impugned. Thus, there is no sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner to file the instant revision within the period of limitation. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. However, I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the merit of the case also.