IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 27 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 64 of 2026 MAHNOHAR LAL SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Abhilasha Jatav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prashant Jain - GA for the State.

ORDER Heard on IA No.315/2026, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 1121 days in filing this criminal revision challenging order dated 13.09.2022 passed in ST rd No.199/2016 by the 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam (M.P.) whereby charges under sections 420 read with section 120-B, 471 read with section 120-B, 120-B, 467 read with section 120-B & 468 read with section 120-B of the IPC against revision petitioner in a case arising out of crime No.92/2016 registered at P.S. Deendayal Nagar, District- Ratlam (M.P.).

2. The reasons of delay as mentioned in the application and supported with the affidavit of Manoharlal Sharma, then Assistant in the M.P. Housing Board, Ratlam are mentioned below:-

(I) Petitioner is not financially sound and was not in a position to engage a counsel to file the criminal revision.

(II) Petitioner being uneducated and could not get the proper guidance and proper knowledge regarding period of limitation. The delay in filing the revision petition is not a result of his negligence but it is result of circumstances. If the delay is not condoned he will be deprived from getting the justice.

3. Petitioner has argued that one Nanalal Bamniya have got the same relief vide order dated 15.12.2025 in CRR No.4362/2022.

4. The Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors.

Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 INSC 286 have summarized the principles when application for condonation of delay is being considered and the relevant para-26 is being reproduced as below:-

"26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision."

5. In the light of above legal position we have to test whether in ordinate delay in the proposed revision ought to be considered or not in this case.

6. The reason that revision petitioner is uneducated is totally incorrect as he was working as Assistant in M.P. Housing Board, Ratlam. At that time he was being represented by counsel Maksood Khan so the ground of un