A.C. Goyal, J. - (1.) This petitioner under Section 482 Cr.RC. is filed by the complainant against the order dated 8.8.2000 whereby the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Cases), Jhalawar allowing the Criminal Revision No. 72/2000 modified the order of charge passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar under Section 452 I.RC. to Section 451 I.RC.
(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the accused respondent No. 2 Mubarik Mansoori along with others entered the office of AEN, R.S.E.B., Jhalrapatan on 28.7.1997 with regard to domestic electric disconnection. All of them were angry, started threatening and gave beating to AEN. After investigation charge-sheet came to be filed against accused persons including the respondent No. 2. Charges under Sections 148, 452, 332 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Public Property Damages Act were framed on 26.5.1998. They pleaded not guilty and trial commenced. Thereafter one accused respondent No. 2 filed this Criminal Revision on 5.8.2000 challenging the order of framing the charges along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. That revision was treated within limitation and was allowed vide impugned order dated 8.8.2000 as stated hereinabove.
(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner contended that this revision was filed after a period of more than two years and the ground of delay was said to be ignorance of the accused regarding the order of framing the charges and this ground was prima facie baseless. This argument deserves acceptance as certified copy of the charges framed against the accused respondent No. 2 goes to show that the charges were explained to him on the very day i.e. 26.5.1998 and he pleaded not guilty. Hence the ground of delay in filing the revision was quite baseless. It is strange that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not pass any order on application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, rather he treated this revision within limitation on the basis of the facts of this case. Thus this part of the impugned order is erroneous.;