- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the appellate court whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Application under Section 5, Limitation Act has also been submitted along with the petition.
(2.) THE petition is time barred by 716 days. The contention of the present petitioner is that delay occasioned in filing the revision petition is bona fide because the petitioner was suffering from ailment and was undergoing treatment and, therefore, he could not contract his counsel, but to support this contention, no documentary evidence has been placed on record. Even ailment has also not been disclosed from which the petitioner was suffering. The further contention of the present petitioner is that the present petitioner had no knowledge about the judgment passed by the learned appellate court, which prima facie seems to be untrue as the petition has been decided in presence of the present petitioner and earlier he has contended that due to illness he could not contact his counsel. These two explanations are contradictory to each other and could not be termed as bona fide. The present petition has been submitted after a considerable delay and which has not been explained satisfactorily. Further more, the present petitioner has already been extended benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and a compensation has been awarded. In view of this matter that the revision petition has been submitted after a considerable delay and the delay has not been explained, the application under Section 5 Limitation Act is liable to be rejected.
(3.) IN view of the above, the application under Section 5 Limitation Act is dismissed and consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed automatically.;