- (1.) C R M No.33088 of 2013 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) seeking condonation of delay of 535 days in filing the present criminal revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, namely, The Baghiari Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Baghiari, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran has contended that the lower appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.8.2011 had acquitted respondent No.2-accused Talwinder Singh. However, this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-society only after receipt of a legal notice dated 3.8.2012 from Kulbir Singh son of Harbhajan Singh and Amarjit Singh son of Karnail Singh through their counsel. As such, on attaining knowledge about the judgment dated 20.8.2011, the petitioner-society obtained copy of the same resulting into delay in filing the present criminal revision petition. Undisputedly, the FIR No.86 dated 9.7.2001 under Sections 408, 201 and 120-B IPC was registered against respondent No.2-accused at Police Station, Chabhal on the complaint sent by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tarn Taran on the averments that respondent No.2 had allegedly committed embezzlement of Rs.1,97,985/- with the petitioner-society. It is an admitted fact that as many as 30 members of the petitioner-society has appeared in the witness box as prosecution witnesses before the trial Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitionersociety was not aware of the proceedings pending against respondent No.2 in the appellate Court. The delay of 535 days in filing the present revision petition is inordinate one and the petitioner-society has not been able to sufficiently explain the same. Thus, the present application does not fulfil the requirement of law as laid down under Section 5 of the Act.
(2.) In these circumstances, there is no merit in the present application and the same is, consequently, dismissed. Main Case Though after dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Act, the present petition is not required to be discussed elaborately, but still for just and fair decision of the matter, the revision petition is being decided on merits as well.
(3.) The petitioner-society has filed the present revision petition against the judgment dated 20.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.2- accused Talwinder Singh was allowed and the judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence, both dated 14.11.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran were set aside resulting into acquittal of respondent No.2. Briefly stated, the FIR in question was registered against respondent No.2 on 9.7.2001 for committing embezzlement of Rs.1,97,985/- with the petitioner-society in which respondent No.2 was employed as secretary. He used to collect the amount from the members of the society and to deposit the same with the bank. He collected the amount from various members, as referred in the FIR, but instead of depositing the same with the bank, embezzled the said amount.;