The court condoned a 588-day delay in filing a Criminal Revision under the Limitation Act due to the petitioner's custody and financial constraints, emphasizing leniency in such circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(SANJAY PRASAD, J.)

It appears from the service report that notice has been personally served upon the opposite party no. 2 personally. However, when the case is called out, none had appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant I. A. No. 5940 of 2024 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 588 days in filing the instant Cr. Rev. No. 489 of 2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is husband and after dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2016, he had surrendered on 17.07.2023 and thereafter he is custody for more than one and half years. It is submitted that due to paucity of money, this Criminal Revision could not filed within time and as such, delay of 588 days in filing Criminal Revision No. 54 of 2016 may be condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the State raised no objection.

5. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and considering the custody of the petitioner and also in view of the averments made in para -5 to 9 of the instant I. A. No. 5940 of 2024 and taking lenient view, the delay of 588 days in preferring the instant Cr. Rev. No. 489 of 2024 is, hereby, condoned.

7. Thus, I. A. No. 5940 of 2024 is allowed and stands disposed of.

I.A. No. 5941 of 2024

8. The present Criminal Revision No. 489 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2016 by Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Dumka whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dumka has dismissed with modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2016 passed by Sri Nishant Kumar, Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka and wherein the accused -Kushami Devi has been acquitted and the conviction of the petitioner has been upheld for the offence under Section 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code with modification in sentence from R.I. for three (3) years to R. I. for two (2) years and ten (10) months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- , Although vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2016 passed by Sri Nishant Kumar, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with G. R. No. 45 of 2009 corresponding to PCR No. 461 of 2008 [T. R. No. 133 of 2016], the petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three (3) years.

9. I. A. No. 5954 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail, during pendency of the Criminal Revision Application.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State are present.

11. However, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, when the case is called out, although the notice was personally served upon the opposite party no. 2 on 14.10.2024, which is evident from the service report of notice by Judge-In-charge/Registrar I/C, Nazarat, Civil Court, Dumka.

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgments and order passed by the learned Court below are illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/- cash and other household articles and torture upon the complainant by the petitioner are false and concocted. It is submitted that the petitioner is husband and after dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2016, he had surrendered on 17.07.2023 and as such, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 13. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is husband and the accused persons had demanded Rs. 20,000/- cash and other household articles and torture upon the complainant and hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Courts below and as such, the prayer for bail may be rejected.