- (1.) THIS revision petition is lying pending since 2004 at admission stage as well as on the point of limitation also. On 09.05.2008, no one was present on behalf of the parties and this Court directed that in case on the next date of hearing nobody is present on behalf of the parties, the matters will be heard and decided in absence of the learned counsel for the parties. Thereafter, on 01.07.2011 and 24.08.2011, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner. Today also, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner.
(2.) HEARD learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1-State as well as learned counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 5-accused. Instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2(Fast Track), Kota in Sessions Case No. 102/2002, whereby accused-Respondents Durga Lal and Sita Ram have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 323/34, 307/34; Accused-respondent Chotu Lal and Radhey Shyam have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 323/34 IPC and under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Accused-Respondent No. 2 Chotu Lal has been convicted and sentenced under Section 326 IPC to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month simple imprisonment; under Section 324 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo ten days additional imprisonment. Accused-Respondent No. 3, Radhey Shyam has been convicted and sentenced under Section 324 IPC and given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
(3.) COMPLAINANT -petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court which is pending at aforesaid stage. This revision petition is barred by 127 days. As per the petitioner after receipt of copy of judgment dated 11.07.2003, the petitioner contacted the Public Prosecutor and the officers of the State and they had assured to file the appeal and also informed that the limitation period is six months. When the petitioner enquired about the State appeal then officers of the State informed that State is not interested to file State appeal. So, the petitioner has filed this revision petition, but the petitioner has not disclosed the name of those officers who had given assurance to file appeal and disclosed that limitation period is six months. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of foregoing discussion, I held that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing this revision petition. There is, thus, no sufficient cause for filing the revision petition belatedly by 127 days. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, thus, liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.;