The court emphasized that a defective criminal revision cannot be treated as regular without adjudicating the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Nand Prabha Shukla, J.

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that against the co-accused, the petitioner had preferred a petition under Article 227 No.10901 of 2024 (Ravindra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) challenging the order dated 24.7.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2(14th Finance Commission), Gorakhpur . The order dated 12.12.2024 passed in the said matter reads as under :-

" 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B.D. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned AGA for the State.

2. Present petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue an order or direction to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 2 (14th Finance Commission), Gorakhpur jointly adjudicated Criminal Revision no. 273 of 2023, Rupam Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another and Criminal Revision no. 62 of 2024, Deepak Kumar Agrawal vs. Ravindra Singh.

3. The core legal issue which has been put to be adjudicated by this Court as indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding institution of criminal revision by two co-accused out of which one was allocated regular number and one was pending as defective on the ground of delay which was supported with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act but at the time of passing order which impugned the present petition dated 24.07.2024 both the criminal revisions were decided i.e. as criminal revision no. 273 of 2023 (regular number of criminal revision no. 62 of 2024) (Defective) which is apparent from the folio of the copy of the order sheet of criminal misc. case no. 62 of 2024 wherein criminal revision preferred at the behest of respondent no. 3 was treated as criminal revision no. 62 of 2024 and as such the process for issuing notices to respondents are hereby dispensed with, since the matter is related to the records available with the petition and there is hardly any case of factual dispute arising for filing instant petition.

4. The factual matrix derives that over the complaint preferred at the behest of petitioner, respondent no. 2 to 6 have been summoned vide order dated 18.8.2023 in pursuance to sections 406 of IPC.

5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 18.8.2023, respondent no. 2 preferred criminal revision no. 273 of 2023 (Roopam Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others) which was well within time, in second set respondent no. 3 also preferred criminal revision but along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported with an affidavit on dated 6.1.2024, over which criminal misc. no. 62 of 2024 has been allocated from the office of learned Session Judge, Gorakhpur and notices have been issued in pursuance to section 5 of the Limitation Act on dated 12.2.2024 and the criminal misc. no. 62 of 2024 was pending only at the behest of disposal of application preferred at the behest of respondent no. 3 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act only. During pendency of the Criminal Misc. no. 62 of 2024 it has been brought to the notice of learned Sessions Judge that another criminal revision preferred at the behest of respondent no. 2 is pending before learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court no. 2, Gorakhpur and as such the same was transferred from learned Sessions Judge to the concerned court where the criminal revision no. 273 of 2023 was pending to be adjudicated vide order dated 25.04.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing order dated 24.07.2024, learned revisional court failed to adopt the process of law while deciding criminal misc. no. 62 of 2024 treating as criminal revision no. 62 of 2024 being a regular criminal revision preferred at the behest of respondent no. 3, whereas it is apparent from the records that the s