IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to demonstrate sufficient grounds for condoning delay in filing a revision application, and that mere awareness of a judgment does not justify prolonged inaction.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

I.A. No. 2436 of 2016 in Cr. Revision No. 1271 of 2016

1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of four years six months in filing of the present criminal revision application against the judgment dated 16.06.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 133 of 2009 corresponding to GR No. 880 of 1987 and Tr No. 2257 of 2009 arising out of Kanti P.S. Case No. 133 of 1987.

2. By the impugned judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge has been pleased to set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant-O.P. No. 2 and acquitted him from the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). The learned trial court had earlier convicted the O.P. No. 2 under the aforementioned provisions of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 420 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 467 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 468 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence under Section 471 IPC. The learned trial court ordered that the sentences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC would run concurrently and sentence under Section 467 IPC would run separately.

Brief Facts of the Case

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR giving rise to the present case was lodged on the basis of the instruction issued by the Security Officer, Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station, Kanti. In the FIR, it is alleged that the O.P. No. 2 was engaged on adhoc basis on training for erection of power station. He was directed to produce the original ITI certificate along with the marksheet. It was indicated in the letter of employment that the joining would be accepted only on the full satisfaction about the genuineness of the documents. Later on, on information that some trained ITI apprentices in Electrician/Wireman and other trade have been engaged on fake ITI certificate, the matter was officially verified by the Director of Labour and Training, Bihar and it was found that the ITI certificate of the O.P. No. 2 was forged.

4. After investigation, police submitted a chargesheet against him, he was put on trial and in course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. No defence witness has been examined. The learned trial court had convicted him and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as stated hereinabove.

5. The Appellate Court, however, took a view that in this case, the expert had not been examined and the appellant-O.P. No. 2 had obtained ITI certificate from the ITI, Begusarai. The Appellate Court also noticed several contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that it is an admitted case of the appellant that he had obtained certificate of Turner from ITI, Begusarai.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

6. This revision application has been filed after about four and half years from the date of the impugned judgment. It is stated that the delay occurred in the official formalities in taking a decision to file revision. All that is stated in the petition is that prior to taking a decision on filing of the revision against the impugned order, it was deemed proper to ascertain the status of similar cases and the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in those cases. Much emphasis has been given on the submission that the revisionist in this case is the Bihar State Power Generation Co. Ltd. which is an organisation in which every judicial order passed by the Hon’ble Court are seen in its letter and spirit and only after examining its fallout, a decision for filing of an appeal or revision is taken.

7. A statement has been made to impress upon this Court that the revisionist being a Public Sector Und