RAJU @ RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROPP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel- for the parties.

(2.) This revision petition, on behalf of the accused-petitioner, is directed against the order of his conviction and sentence under Sec. 392, I.P.C., to undergo 5 years RI and fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional SI, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court also.

(3.) The revision petition was preferred with a delay of 322 days, therefore, an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed for condonation of delay contending therein that on the date of his conviction by the trial Court he was confined in jail in another case, therefore, his appeal before the appellate Court was preferred through his Advocate. The personal appearance of accused is not required in an appeal, therefore, he could not know about dismissal of his appeal. It is further contended that his father is an old man and when his younger brother, who is a student, came to meet him then the petitioner told him to enquire about the present position of the case and when ho came to know about dismissal of his appeal then he instructed his counsel to file the revision petition.