JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent and Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This is an application filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 02.02.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.11/2021, in connection with Criminal Revision 40/21.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition is that;

3.1. The petitioner being the Principal lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Karimganj against the respondent No.2 in connection with misappropriation of School fund amounting to Rs.6,852/-and unaudited amount of Rs.23,770/-approximately. The case was registered as Karimganj, P.S. Case No. 604/17 at 04.07.2017, registered under Sections 409/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, thorough investigation was carried out and the case was charge-sheeted vide order dated 30.12.2017 against the respondent No.2. On receipt of the charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter in G.R. Case No.1448/17, dated 08.03.2018.

3.2. The respondent No. 2 has challenged the cognizance order dated 08.03.2018, and with a delay of 1360 days filed a revision petition No. 40/2021 along with the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was been registered as Mis. Case No.11/2021, in connection with Criminal Revision No.40/2021.

3.3. The said Mis. Case 11/2021 was heard and disposed on 02.02.2022, and condone the delay of 1360 days and accordingly, the matter was fixed for hearing the revision petition on 09.02.2022.

4. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied of the order dated 02.02.2022, the present petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Petition indicating the following drawbacks;

4.1. It is stated that the learned Trial Court has passed the order without applying his judicial mind, while condoning the delay of 1360 days and thereby, causing a serious miscarriage of justice to the present petitioner.

4.2. The law requires day to day explanations for her delay, but, there was no explanation and the learned Session Judge vide order condoned the unusual delay in filing the revision before the Session Court, against the impugned order of cognizance at 08.03.2018 in G.R. Case No. 1448/2017.

4.3. The petitioner further submitted that the non submission of objection by any person does not liquidate the provision of law and as such the reason given by the learned Session Judge is not tenable to condone the delay of 1360 days in preferring the Revision.

4.4. The petitioner submitted that no doubt in view of covid-19 dated 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded, but, there was no explanation from 08.03.2018 to 14.03.2020 and thereafter, from 03.10.2021, it appears that the learned Court miserably failed to give judicious reasons for the period of minimum 90 days.

4.5. The respondent cannot put entire blame for wrong advice upon her engaged counsel for delay in preferring the revision petition. Further, the learned Judge also took into consideration of the alleged sanctioned matter which is illegal and not sustainable in law and as such same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 02.02.2022, passed in Criminal Mis. Case No.11/2021 in connection with Crl.Rev./40/21.

6. In reply, the respondent No. 2, accordingly appeared and filed her affidavit-in-opposition on the following grounds;-

6.1. On 31.01.2017, the respondent No.2 took the charge of Principal from the outgoing Principal. At that time, her health was not keeping well, so she wrote a letter for leave for the period of 03.05.2017 to 06.05.2017, to undertake Medical treatment at Guwahati. Accordingly, as per letter dated 02.05.2017, the prayer for casual leave along with station leave permission was a