1. This revision is directed against the order dated 17-9-1978 passed by the Sessions judge, Cuttack dismissing the appeal of the petitioner under S. 454, Cr. P. C. registered as Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1979 on the ground of limitation, A petition under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the Criminal Appeal, but the grounds urged therein for condonation of delay did not appeal to the Sessions Judge as sufficient cause and, accordingly, he rejected it, and also the appeal as barred by time.

2. Mr. Palit, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urges two grounds. The first ground is that the cause of action for filing an appeal under Section 454 (1), Cr. P. C. accrued on 27-7 1979 when Criminal Misc. Case No.253 of 1979 filed in this Court for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal was dismissed. Computing the period of 30 days from that date the appeal was in time. The second ground is that as the petitioner had erroneously thought that an appeal under S. 454 (1), Cr.P.C. can be filed only after the final disposal of the leave application the delay caused by erroneous thinking based upon wrong legal advice should constitute sufficient cause.

3. T