- (1.) This revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 7th August, 2003 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short ACMM), Calcutta in connection with Section C (DD) Case No. 125 of 2003 under Section 373/34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter Called I.P.C.) and for directing the Sanlaap, the Opposite Party No.2 to produce the juvenile Juhi Singh for handing over to her mother Simla Singh, Opposite Party No. 3 and to produce before Child Welfare Committee in view of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter called the Act). In connection with the present revisional application the petitioner has also filed two separate applications, one being C.R.A.N. No. 745 of 2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation delay of 615 days in filing the revisional application. By the other application being C.R.A.N. No. 746 of 2005 the petitioner has prayed for initiation of criminal proceeding under Sections 191 and 193 of the I.P.C. against Jayanta Pal and Sibsankar Guha, the officers of Immoral of Traffic Section, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta. I intend to dispose of the revisional application and the other two applications by this common judgment and order, though before hearing the revisional application question of condonation of delay in filling the revisional application should have been taken up for hearing.
(2.) Before entering into the merit of the revisional application, I intend to dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner being C.R. A. N. No. 745 of 2005 for condonation of delay of 615 days in presenting the revisional application. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it has been stated that the impugned order challenging which the revisional application has been filed, was passed by the learned ACMM on 7th August, 2003 in Section C(DD) Case No. 125 of 2003. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is without dates as to when the petitioner obtained certified copy of the impugned order challenging which the revisional application has been filed and in the intervening period what steps were taken by the petitioner in presenting the revisional application. In fact, no ground at all has been shown in the application explaining the delay which prevented the petitioner from preferring the revisional application in time.
(3.) The six paragraphs of the application along with the prayer do not at all disclose any ground for condonation of delay. It is undisputed that the settled principle of law is that the Court should be liberal in the matter of condonation of delay but, that does not indicate that the Court will condone the delay where no ground or explanation for condoning delay has been mentioned and explained in the application. Nothing has been stated in the application as to what the petitioner was doing since 7th August, 2003 till he preferred the revisional application before this Court on 11th April, 2005. It is not desirable that every hour's or every second's delay to be explained but, the application must disclose grounds showing different dates for the delay which prevented the petitioner in filing the revisional application in time. The application is hopelessly disclosing no ground at all for condonation of delay and no ground at all which prevented him in preferring the revisional application in time. Accordingly, this Court does not find any ground at all for condonation of delay of 615 days in preferring the revisional application. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being C.R.A.N. No. 745 of 2005 being without any grounds showing explanation of delay accordingly has no merit at all and it is accordingly dismissed. For this ground alone the revisional application is not entertainable and is liable to be dismissed.;