IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

217 CRR-3382-2025 State of Punjab ....Applicant/Petitioner V/s Sandeep Rawat and another ....Respondent Date of decision: 30.01.2026 Date of uploading: 30.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Jaypreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

CRM-53157-2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant– State seeking condonation of a delay of 610 days in filing the accompanying revision petition. The revision petition has been preferred impugning the order dated 20.01.2024, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, ordered the discharge of the respondents from the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC in FIR No. 37 dated 21.02.2019, registered at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-State, while seeking grant of the prayer for condonation of delay of 610 days, has argued that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied for by the prosecution on the very next day, i.e. 22.01.2024, and the same was prepared by the Copying Branch on 31.01.2024. Thereafter, the learned District Attorney, Rupnagar, upon scrutinizing the judgment, forwarded a detailed proposal along with his comments for filing a criminal revision against the said judgment to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, vide Memo No. 396 dated 05.02.2024, well before 26.04.2024. Learned State counsel further submits that the Director, Prosecution and Litigation examined the proposal and forwarded the same to the Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Judicial-II Branch), Chandigarh, vide U.O. No. 19(78)2024-11AD/1649 dated 12.04.2024. The said department, after due examination, sought the opinion of the learned Advocate General, Punjab, and accordingly sent the file to the office of the Advocate General, Punjab, vide Memo No. 2/70/2024- 3Judl-2/1165 dated 19.04.2024. It is further argued that the file was marked to the concerned Law Officer on 22.04.2024, who, after examining the record and the impugned judgment, tendered his legal opinion on 23.04.2024, endorsing the proposals of the District Attorney and the Director, Prosecution and Litigation. The said opinion was duly approved by the learned Advocate General, Punjab, on 26.04.2024, and thereafter the proposal was sent to the Government for taking a final decision on the same day. Learned State counsel further submits that the Government accorded sanction to file the revision petition vide Memo No. 2/70/2024-3Judl-2/1589 dated 03.05.2024, which was received in the office of the Advocate General, Punjab, on 06.05.2024. Subsequently, the matter was placed before the concerned Law Officer for drafting the revision petition on 06.05.2024, and the grounds of revision were drafted on 07.05.2024 and forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar. It is lastly submitted that the delay thereafter occurred as the police officials were engaged in duties relating to the Parliamentary Elections, investigation of other important cases, and maintenance of law and order.

After completion of all requisite formalities, the revision petition has been filed. Learned State counsel submits that the delay in filing the present criminal revision is neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred on account of the procedural movement of the file through various statutory and administrative channels. It has been argued by learned counsel that due to the procedural requirements as detailed above, a delay of 610 days occurred, which was purely procedural and circumstantial. It has further been submitted that the delay was not attributable to any intentional negligence or lack of diligence but rather resulted from the extensive procedural requirements and formalities inherent in the process of obtaining the necessary sanction. It is, thus, submitted that the circumstances of the case indicate that the delay in filing the instant