The court ruled that the applicant's delay of 1074 days in filing a revision petition was unjustified due to lack of sufficient cause, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation laws.

ORDER :

DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL, J.

This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant assailing the appeal judgment dated 25.01.2021 delivered by 2nd Additional Session Judge, District Singrauli (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.100294/2015 (Sunil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of M.P.) by which learned Appellate Court has only modified the sentence part of 03 years under Section 420 of IPC to 01 year R.I. preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.9.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Singrauli(MP) in Criminal Case No.1232/2007 ( State of M.P. Vs. Sunil Kumar Dubey ) whereby the applicant-accused has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulations. Hence, this criminal revision.

2. Heard on I.A. No.11554 of 2025 – an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT for condonation of delay in presentation of present criminal revision.

3. The revision is drastically barred by 1074 days i.e. almost a period of two years and nine months.

4. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the impugned appeal judgment was passed on 25/1/2021 and the revision was required to be filed within 90 days from the date of appeal judgment; but same could not be filed in due time as applicant was not present at the time of appeal judgment and had no knowledge about delivery of the appeal judgment. It is submitted that counsel engaged by the applicant before the Trial Court could not informed him about passing of the appeal judgment well in time because applicant went out of Singrauli due to employment, therefore, he could not appear. Thus, there is a delay of 1074 days i.e. almost a period of two years and nine months in presentation of the present revision petition. It is further submitted that the delay caused in filing the revision petition is bonafide and unintentional as circumstances were beyond the control of the applicant as he had no knowledge about delivery of appeal judgment, therefore, revision petition was filed on 09.5.2025. On the aforesaid pretext, it is prayed that the delay caused in presentation the revision petition may be condoned.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length.

7. On perusal of the impugned appeal judgment and material available on record, it is revealed that impugned appeal judgment was passed on 25.01.2021 in the presence of counsel for the applicant and same was passed after hearing counsel for the applicant/accused as well as counsel for the respondent and the revision has been filed before this Court on 09.5.2025 i.e. after a delay of 1074 days i.e. almost a period of two years and nine months.

8. Law with regard to scope and jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT is well settled by Hon’ble the Apex Court and the various High Courts.

9. In the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd.; AIR 1962 SC 361 , Hon’ble the Apex Court has held as under:-

“7. In construing Section 5 (of the LIMITATION ACT ), it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the de