- (1.) VISHNU Chandra Gupta, J 1. By means of this defective criminal revision, which is pending since 2009 before this Court, has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.06.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption (Central) CBI, Lucknow in RC No.RC0062003A0018 (CBI Vs. Ms. Mayawati and others), under Sections 120 -B, 420, 467, 468, 471 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short 'PC Act'), whereby learned trial court refused to take cognizance against Ms. Mayawati, the then Chief Minister of State of U.P. and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Cabinet Minister of State of U.P. on the ground that His Excellency the Governor of State of U.P., who is the authority competent to accord sanction for prosecution of Ms. Mayawati and Sri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, refused to accord sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') and Section 19(1) of PC Act.
(2.) STAMP Reporting Section of this Court pointed out the following defects in this defective criminal revision: (1) that; it has been filed by the revisionists beyond 01 year, 06 months and 13 days and as such barred by time. (2) that; the certified copy of the impugned order has also not been filed. (3) that; the revisionists are not the party to the case in which order has been passed.
(3.) THE perusal of the record reveals that this defective criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists along with the Application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act and the application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order dated 05.06.2007. The order dated 23.03.2009 passed by this Court reveals that the revisionists have not applied for certified copy of the impugned order before filing this defective criminal revision. By the said order, this Court directed the revisionist to file the certified copy of the impugned order within a week and thereafter, the application for permission to file revision as well as application for condonation of delay shall be considered. After the lapse of more than six years, certified copy of the impugned order has not been filed by the revisionists.;