SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.
Vijay Kumar Singh - Petitioner 
Vs.
Union of India through CBI - Opposite Party 
Cr. Revision No. 1310 of 2023 With Cr. Revision No. 1312 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Shipra Shalini, Advocate (In Both Cases)
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to A.S.G.I. Mr. Kumar Swapnil, AC to A.S.G.I.

The court allows extensive delay in filing revision applications under extenuating circumstances, emphasizing the need for timely procedural amendments.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections relating to revision and delay condonation - Petitioner sought to condone significant delays (1233 and 1234 days respectively) in filing revision applications due to earlier rejected discharge applications - The necessity of amending the prayer portions was emphasized, as the initial applications were partially dependent on previous rulings - Petitioner granted further time to file supplementary affidavits. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 6).

Findings of Court:
Time frames for filing supplementary affidavits were established, with the next hearing set for January 24, 2025.

Issues: The key question involved the justification for the extensive delays and the related procedural implications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of timely filings while allowing leeway for procedural amendments under extenuating circumstances.

Result: Both applications for condonation of delay granted.

Table of Content
1. initial applications filed and required interventions. (Para 1 , 5)
2. delay in filing revision application and challenges made. (Para 2 , 3)
3. time granted for supplementary affidavit filing. (Para 4 , 8)
4. similar delay in filing another revision application. (Para 6 , 7)
5. court's order to list cases on a specific date. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 9879 of 2023 In Cr. Revision No. 1310 of 2023

1.Heard Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the Opposite Party.

2. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 1233 days in filing the revision application.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially an application was preferred by the petitioner before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance but during the pendency of the said application the discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected which constrained him to file a separate application for amending the prayer portion made in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application 12.10.2023 the present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. He submits that he shall file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the said Interlocutory Application filed in Cr.M.P. No. 1149 of 2012 seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the said application.

4. He is granted two weeks’ time in order to file the supplementary affidavit.

I.A. No. 9880 of 2023 In Cr. Revision No. 1312 of 2023

5. Heard Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI for the Opposite Party.

6. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for condoning a delay of 1234 days in filing the revision application.

7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially an application was preferred by the petitioner before this Court challenging the order taking cognizance but during the pendency of the said application the discharge application preferred by the petitioner was rejected which constrained him to file a separate application for amending the prayer portion made in W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Interlocutory Application was kept pending and on 05.05.2023 W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 12.10.2023 the present revision application has been no separate revision application was preferred by him against the order refusing to discharge the petitioner dated 05.03.2018. He submits that he shall file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the said Interlocutory Application filed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 211 of 2011 seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the said application.

8. He is granted two weeks’ time in order to file the supplementary affidavit.

9. Let both these cases be listed on 24th January, 2025.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top