The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction should prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities, allowing for a liberal approach in condoning delays to prevent miscarriages of justice.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973, challenging the impugned order dated 01.08.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 64/2024 (C.I.S. No. 66/2024). The said order dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.08.2023, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Chittorgarh, in Case No. 1749/2023. The petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court has wrongfully taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, Section 66D of the IT Act, and Sections 3/4 of the RPO, 1949.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are that on12.06.2019, during a patrol at approximately 5:30 PM, Station House Officer Shailendra Singh and his team received information about an individual standing near a cart in front of the Panchayat Samiti, engaged in online gambling through his mobile phone. Acting on this tip, Constable Pushpendra Singh, in plain clothes, approached the individual, later identified as Petitioner No. 1, and transacted for a game recharge using a marked 500 rupee note. Subsequently, the petitioner was apprehended, and upon search, several incriminating items, including mobile phones, Ids, passwords, and a significant amount of cash, were seized. An FIR No. 256/19 was registered at the Kotwali Police Station, Chittorgarh. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Trial Court took cognizance on 29.08.2023. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakasha Sanhita, 2023(herein after referred as "BNSS”), registered as No. 64/2024 (C.I.S. No. 66/2024), which was dismissed by the learned Revision Court on technical grounds of being time-barred, vide order dated 01.08.2024.

3. The Petitioner contended that the Trial Court, in taking cognizance, and subsequently, the Revision Court, in dismissing the revision petition on time-barred grounds, had both erred. The Petitioner asserted that no illegal gambling had occurred, and that the police action had been based on a misinterpretation of the nature of the mobile game, which was merely a form of entertainment. Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that the Revision Court had erred in prioritizing procedural technicalities over the merits of the case, particularly given the justification provided for the delay in filing the revision petition. Finally, the Petitioner invoked the principle of presumption of innocence, emphasizing that an innocent individual should not be subjected to punishment.

4. Heard both the counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

5. Before delving into the merits of the present petition, it is pertinent to discuss the legal framework under which the revisional jurisdiction of the Court is invoked. Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to section 397 Cr.P.C.), outlines the powers of the High Court and Sessions Court to call for records and revise orders passed by subordinate Courts. This provision plays a crucial role in ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done by correcting any legal or procedural errors that may have occurred in the lower Courts. To fully appreciate the scope and application of this Section, it is essential to reproduce it here for reference.

438.Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.

(1)The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execut