SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUBBEDIN @ SUKKI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent



##PAGE1##

CRR-2946-2025 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-2946-2025 (O&M)

Subbedin @ Sukki ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent

JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT OPERATIVE PART UPLOADED ON

RESERVED PRONOUNCED PRONOUNCED OR

ON ON FULL

19.01.2026 05.03.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 05.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana

***

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

168 01.11.2007 Ferozepur Jhirka 3/8, 5/8 of C.S Act

Criminal Case before No. 06 of 2008

trial Court Decided on: 18.03.2009

Criminal Appeal before No. 24 of 2009

Appellate Court Decided on: 26.11.2010

Convict’s name Penal provision Sentence

Subbedin 3/8 of Cow Slaughter Act R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-

5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-

CRM-46803-2025

1. Seeking condonation of delay of 4667 days in filing in the criminal revision

petition to enable the petitioner, who was convicted by the trial Court under Section 3 read with

Section 8 and 5 read with Section 8 of Cow Slaughter Act, has come up before this Court by

filing an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act along with revision petition.

2. State counsel submits that the applicant’s custody in the present case is 08

months and 21 days.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that she would be contended and satisfied if

(cid:1)

1 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-03-2026 20:25:15 :::

##PAGE2##

CRR-2946-2025 (O&M)

the sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone.

4. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Ferozepur Jhirka points out that the applicant was convicted under Section 3 read with Section

8 and Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and he was sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 03 years.

5. Before commenting on the merits of the case, it is necessary to see the

application for condonation of delay for 4667 days.

6. The State has not filed any reply despite order dated 21.11.2025, as such, this

Court has to analyze the contents of the application filed under the Limitation Act to assess the

justification to condone the delay.

7. The application for condonation of delay is registered as CRM No.46803 of

2025. There is a delay of 4667 days in filing the present revision petition. In paragraph 3, the

applicant submits that after the conviction by the concerned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, the

applicant has challenged the same by filing a criminal appeal bearing CRA No.62 of 2009

before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. However, his criminal appeal was

dismissed vide judgment dated 26.11.2010. Counsel for the applicant further submits that in

addition to the present petitioner, the conviction of co-convict, Rujdar, was also upheld and he

had challenged the same by filing a criminal revision petition before this Court which was

registered as CRR-240-2011 and the same was disposed of vide judgment dated 16.05.2011, on

the ground that he had undergone sufficient period of custody. He further submits that the

petition filed by co-convict Rujdar was disposed of by this Court, as such, the applicant was

under the impression that he would also get the same benefit of the sentence being reduced to

undergone. However, he was mis-informed and could not understand the implication that he

had to file a separate revision petition against his sentence.

8. Considering the technicalities of the law and lack of legal awareness amongst the

people, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner's mental awareness about the impact of

reduction of sentence of the co-convict. Thus, in the overall analysis of the facts and

circumstances, this Court is satisfied that despite the delay being massive, there are sufficient

reasons to condone the same.

9. Given above, the present application is allowed. Delay of 4667 days in filing the

present revision petition is condoned.

(cid:2)

2 of 3

::: Downloaded on - 09-03-202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top