ANJALI KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashment of the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2009 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of 44 days' delay was dismissed and accordingly Revision was also dismissed as time barred.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short is that the petitioner had preferred a Criminal Revision against the cognizance order passed by the C.J.M., Hazaribagh by which cognizance of the offence was taken only under Sections 147/341/353/504 of the Indian Penal Code but it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the materials in the case diary the cognizance could not be taken by the C.J.M. for the alleged offence under Section 3(VIII) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against which when the petitioner came to learn that no cognizance has been taken for the alleged offence under Special Act, after some time of the order recorded by the C.J.M., she preferred a Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2009 supported with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Notice was served upon the members of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6. They appeared in Criminal Revision and also filed their objection. It was explained by the petitioner in the Criminal Revision that -she was ill on 4.4.2009 and in the meantime she delivered a child and accordingly she was advised to take bed rest and in support thereof she filed photocopy of the medical certificate but no medical prescription was attached with the said certificate. On the other hand, the members of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 controverted the contention by saying that the petitioner being the Chairman of Municipality, Hazaribagh had been attending several meetings of the Municipality and in support thereof they have filed the minutes of the proceeding of the Municipality but they did not deny that the petitioner had delivered a child under medical care of the Doctor.

(3.) I find from the perusal of the order impugned dated 15.2.2010 recorded by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh that though the learned Sessions Judge discussed the explanation made and grounds taken by the petitioner for late filing of the Criminal Revision but such explanation was not considered only on the ground that she being the Chairman was attending the meetings of the Municipality during such period and that the medical certificate in original was not brought on the record. Further, the xerox copy of the said certificate was not supported by any medical prescription. I find that the birth of a child delivered by the petitioner has not been denied by the members of the Opposite Party either before the Sessions Judge or before this Court and that she was asked for natal rest. I find that the explanation regarding delay as made by the petitioner before the revisional court ought to have been considered. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.