Asha Arora, J. - (1.) The application being C.R.A.N. 5466 of 2017 under section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 492 days in filing the revisional application being C.R.R. 4111 of 2017.
(2.) Petitioner has assailed the order dated 4/5/2016 passed in GR Case No. 16 of 2011 under sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC whereby the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and dropped the proceeding. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner/defacto complainant preferred the revisional application on 15/12/2017 along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay of 492 days in preferring the revisional application has been explained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the application which read as follows: "8. The petitioner states that it is pertinent to mention herein that sometimes in the month of October, 2017 when the petitioner were enquiring about the progress of investigation relating to the said Shakespeare Sarani Police Station Case No. 02/2011, dated 02.01.2011, the petitioner herein came to learn about the submission of the Report in Final Form discharging the accused persons. That upon having such knowledge the petitioner had went to the concerned court and upon enquiry came to learn that not only the said Final report was submitted way back in the month of November 2014, but the same was accepted by the Court in the Month of May 2016 and the case was closed as dropped. 9. The petitioner states immediately thereafter the petitioner had gone to the courts and applied for certified copies of the said reports. That on perusing the same the petitioner were surprised to find that even though in the order sheet, the Learned Judge had mentioned about the direction of issuance of notice, but till date no notice was received by the petitioner herein from which the petitioner could have any knowledge regarding the filing of such report by the investigating officer." Relying upon the case of Bhagwant Singh Versus Commissioner of Police and Another reported in (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 537 paragraphs 4 and 5, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without service of notice upon the defacto complainant and without hearing the defacto complainant the acceptance of final report by the learned Magistrate was not justified. It is contended that the defacto complainant/petitioner herein intended to file a protest petition against the final report but since no notice was served, the petitioner was denied the opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel sought to impress that without the notice having been actually served upon the petitioner, the impugned order speaks of service of notice although there is no service return of notice in the lower court record. In other words, the credibility of the impugned order has been questioned. ;