The power of revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a special discretionary jurisdiction, somewhat similar to inherent jurisdiction, and that the strict rules of limitation need not apply to such proceedings. The approach of the court in matters of condonation of delay has been pointed out to be justice oriented and that condonation of delay need not be considered in a pedantic manner.

B. L. YADAV,J, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision preferred under Section 397/401 Code of Criminalprocedure 1973 (for short the Code) on behalf of the State of D. P. was admitted on 17. 4. 1987 by ADivision Bench consisting of Honble K. J. Shetty as his Lordship then was and one of us (B. L. Yadav J.) and the delay of about 146 days was condoned without issuing notices to the opposite parties the present applicants.

( 2 ) THE revision is directed against the order dated 21st July 1984 passed by Special/additional Sessions Judge Bulandshahr. Fact of the case need not detain us much as the same are admitted.

( 3 ) IN a case under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act (for short the Act), P. S. Khurja, Distt. Bulandshahr, process was issued by the order dated 20. 3. 1984 passed by the Magistrate against the opposite parties. Against that order the accused opposite parties preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge and the same was allowed without assigning any reason and the order directing the process to be issued was set aside by the impugned order dated 3lstjuly 1984. Against that order, on behalf of State, a belated criminal revision was filed accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The delay of 146 days in filing the revision was condoned without issuing notice to the opposite parties and the revision was admitted same day by a Division Bench of which one of us (Honble B. L. Yadav, J.) was a party, and notices were directed to be issued to the opposite parties. An application has been filed on behalf (If opposite parties with the prayer that the order condoning delay without issuing notices to the opposite parties and admitting. the revision may be recalled. Earlier matter was listed before learned Single Judge but later on, as the order condoning delay and admitting revision was passed by a Division Bench, matter has been placed before a Division Bench and this is how the matter has come before us.

( 4 ) MR. A. B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the opposite parties extraneously urged that as the revision was time barred by 146 days, valuable rights accrued in favour of opposite parties, the accused and without issuing notice to them on the application under section 5 of Limitation Act, the delay ought not to have been condoned and in case delay was not condoned, revision could not have been admitted. Each days delay must have been explained. By a perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it is manila fest that Special Judge/additional Session Judge passed impugned order on 3 1. 7. 1984 but the 0 application for certified copy of the order was filed by the applicant on 4. 2. 1985 and the same was ready on 7. 2. 1985. The matter was received n in the Legal Remembrancers office at Lucknow on 23. 3. 1985 for permission to file the revision, On 23. 3. 1985 proposal was examined and on 25. 3. 1985 decision was office at Lucknow on 23. 3. 1985 for permission to file the revision, On 23. 3. 1985 proposal was examined and on 25. 3. 1985 decision was taken by the Government a: to file revision in the High Court but nevertheless 3 the revision has been filed on 27. 3. 1985 and the report of S tamp Reporter of the High Court office 0 was submitted later ort There appears to be n contradiction in the application and affidavit filed Co by Gajraj Singh Verma, penal lawyer in the Sessions Court Bulandshahr. The case on behalf of State should be examined on that level as that of b a private litigant. Reliance was placed on State of 3 Maharashtra v. Jaswant Parasharam Sawant, S (1977 Cr. L. J. 1944 D. B.), State of UP. v. Christopher Tobit and others (A. I. R. 1955 Alid. 273 ).

( 5 ) MR. A. L. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State urged that criminal jurisdiction was invoked under inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and the delay can be condoned. even without issuing notice to the accused opposite parties. Any way even if notices were not issued