- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. This revision has been directed against the order dated 12-11-1991, passed by Sri Dineh Mohan, Illrd Addition al Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 64/12 of 1991-Ram Saran Das v. State of U. P. and seven others, rejecting the application of the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitaiion Act.
(2.) THE revisionist has filed a criminal complaint in the Court of learned Munsif Magistrate-I, Kairana, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 427/34, I. P. C. against the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. THE witnesses were examined in the complaint and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 11-4-1989, and summoned the accused persons under Sections 323,324,504,506 and 427, I. P. C. In his order the learned Magistrate wrote as under: "case called out, complainant is present. I perused the records and heard the arguments. I am of the opinion that prima facie offence under Sections 323, 324,504,506 and 427, I. P. C. against the accused Nos. 1 to 7. Let the accused Nos. 1 to 7 be summoned under Sections 323,324,504,506 and 427, I. P. C. for appearance on 22-5-1989. " He forgot to write that offence is made out. The opposite party filed a revision. Learned revisional court allowed the revision on 7-3-1990 without consider ing that it was only an omission and clerical mistake. It is stated that the applicant moved an application before the learned Magistrate to correct the mistake. However, the learned Magistrate on" the misinterpretation of the order of the revisional Court rejected the application of the applicant vide order dated 25-7-1990. He dropped the proceeding on 24-7-1990. The revisionist wanted to challenge both the orders dated 24-7-90 and 25-7-90, but due to mistake only order dated 25-7-90 could be challenged in the revision. The revision No. 270 of 1990 against this order was dismissed on the ground that the proceedings have already been quashed by the order dated 24-7-92. Knowing this fact the applicant filed a revision against the order dated 24-7-90 alongwith the applica tion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay which application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 12-11-91, against which order the present revision has been filed. I have gone through both the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the order dated 7-3-90, the learned Sessions Judge has not allowed the revision merely on the ground that the learned Magistrate had passed an ambiguous and illegal order. Prima facie and summoning order may be passed when a case is made out, but the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision also on the ground that the learned Magistrate has called for a report by the Police Station vide his order dated 13-12- 89. The report was not filed and, therefore, it was just and proper to have a enquiry report for the police concerned under Section 202, Cr. P. C. before summoning the accused per sons. No enquiry report was received and, therefore, it cannot be said that till that moment there was satisfaction or opinion of the learned Magistrate that the accused should be summoned on the basis of evidence which had already been before him. This was the main reason for allowing the revision. The revision was not allowed merely on the ground that the Magistrate has left to writ that the case is made out.
(3.) AS regards the condonation of delay,there was an order of 24-7-90, that was the main order. After the order dated 24-7-90 was passed, on 25-7-90, the revisionist Ram Saran moved an application praying for summoning the doctor for evidence under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and then summoning the accused persons. The order of the learned Sessions Judge specifically shows that when the application dated 25- 7-90 was moved for summoning the doctor, the clerk of the Court appended a note that the com plaint case has already been decided on 24-7-90 in accordance with the order in the criminal revision. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the revisionist or his Counsel did not know about the main order dated 24-7-90. There is specific finding of the learned Sessions Judge that there is a glaring negligence of the revisionist which cannot be said to be reasonable or bonafide. This is a finding of fact and cannot be assailed in a revision. The learned Sessions Judge has given a very detailed order appreciating the facts of the case and the relevant law on the subject and has then rejected the applica tion. I find no illegality or any irregularity in the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The revisionist has himself slept over the matter. There was total negligence and the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The revision has got no force and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;