- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 16-11-83 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisionists against the order dated 17-3-83 passed by S. D. M. Sadar, Muzaffarnagar under Section 107/16, Cr. P. C. and directing them to ex ecute personal bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety each in the like amount for main taining peace for a period of one year.
(2.) THE appellate court dismissed the appeal as time barred. THE learned Counsel for the revisionists Sri S. L. Saraff vehementally argued that the appellate court committed illegality in dismissing the appeal as time barred after hearing the Counsel for the parties on merits. I do not find any force in this contention. If a court finds that an appeal is time barred it is bound to dismiss it. It is the duty of the appellant to file an appeal within the time or to move an application under Section 5 and/or Section 14of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. From the appellate court's order it appears that the revisionists had initially preferred criminal revision on 22-4-83 challenging the order dated 17-3-83 passed by S. D. M. THEy were entitled to benefit of time spent in obtaining copy of the order. THE ap plication for copy was moved on 4-4-83 and it was prepared and notified on 6-4-83. Thus the revisionists were entitled to get benefit of three days, which were spent by them in obtaining the copy. Thus they should have filed the appeal by 21-4-83. THEy, however, filed the revision on 22-4-83. This revision was subsequently con verted into appeal by the revisionists. Though the revision was within time the appeal when converted into revision be came time barred as the limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days while the limita tion for filing revision is 90 days. On con version the revisionist should have filed an application supported by an affidavit to show that they preferred the revision either under erroneous legal advice or some other mistake committed in good faith. In absence of any material to indicate that the revision was bona fidefy filed the revisionists were not entitled to condona tion of delay. THErefore, the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge committed no il legality in dismissing the appeal as time barred. THE revisionists cannot take ad vantage of their negligence or inaction. The learned Counsel for the revisionists then contended that the revision was filed within 30 days from the date of the order and on conversion of the revision into appeal it shall be deemed that the appeal was filed on the date on which this revision was filed. This argu ment, which does not appear to be correct, even if accepted, would not help the revisionists. From the dates noted in the appellate courts order there is no doubt that the revision was filed beyond 30 days from the date of the impugned order. There is no allegation in the memo of revision that the revision was filed prior to 22nd April, 1982. The learned Counsel was offered opportunity to ask the revisionists to file an affidavit stating the date of institution of the revision. The learned Counsel expressed inability and insisted that in spite of inability to file affidavit, the record itself may be sum moned. In absence of any allegations even in the memo of revision I do not find any reason for summoning the record, more so, when this revision is pending since 1984. The learned Counsel for the revisionists then contended that in the revisional jurisdiction the illegality of the order passed by the S. D. M. may be scrutinised. He contended that the Magistrate has not recorded any finding to the effect that the revisionists were likely to commit breach of peace or had dis turbed the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that can occasion breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility and, therefore, the order directing the revisionists to furnish bonds for keeping peace is illegal. This contention is without any force. The Magistrate had examined Tahar Singh alias Nahar Singh, Pradhan of the village and Barja who supported the allegations contained in the application that the revisionists, who had formed a group had damaged the standing crop and indulged in quarrel on account of which there was apprehension of breach of peace. The learned Magistrate also con sidered the revisionist's evidence and held that their evidence is insufficient to nega tive the evidence that there was apprehen sion to breach of peace. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate committed no il legality in directing the revisionists to fur nish the bonds. The order does not suffer from any illegality. Moreover, the learned Counsel could not point out any illegality in the order, passed by the appellate court, dismissing the appeal as time barred.
(3.) THE revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;