A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Bhilwara dated 15. 1. 1981.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Enforcement Inspector inspected the house of the petitioners on 20. 5. 1975 and on inspection he found that three drums, of kerosene, containing 220, 220 and 75 litres of kerosene, were lying there. Thus, a total 512 litres of kerosene was found. Neither the accused were having any licence for sale of kerosene nor they were keeping any stock register or bills of purchase of this kerosene. After close of the investigation, a complaint was filed by the Enforcement Inspector in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara. THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 13. 6. 1979 discharged the accused and ordered return of the kerosene which was seized by the Enforcement Inspector. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the State has preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the State revision, set aside the order of discharge passed, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara and remanded the case back to the. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the case in accordance with law. Aggrieved against this order dated 15. 1. 1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara the present revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners challenging the order on the ground that the revision filed by the State before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara was barred by time. An affidavit has been filed by the counsel Shri Hanuman Prasad Bajia that he specifically raised this question before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the present revision petition is barred by time by 5 days and he has also cited the decision of this Court in Javri Lal vs. Hazari Singh (1 ). But the learned Additional Sessions Judge has neither referred to his objection nor has referred to the case on the subject cited by him in the impugned order. A copy of this affidavit was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record and it appears that the revision petition filed by the State before the learned Sessions Judge is barred by time. From the endorsement made in the certified copy of the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it appears that judgment was delivered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13. 6. 1979 and the copy was applied for on 14. 6. 1979, the date fixed for preparation of the copy was 18. 6. 1979 and the copy was ready on 18. 6. 1979. But it was taken by the learned A. P. P. on 27. 6. 1979. The revision petition was preferred on 24. 9. 1979. The State is only entitled to exclusion of 5 days i. e, 14. 6. 1979 to 18. 6. 1979 (both days inclusive ). But the revision petition was actually filed on 24. 9. 1979, as such the revision is barred by 7 days. In view of this fact that the revision filed by the State was barred by time and a specific objection was raised by the counsel for the respondents and the same was not heeded to by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, the order passed on 15. 1. 1981 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara to decide the matter afresh after considering the objection of the respondent-petitioners. It will be open for the learned Public Prosecutor to justify the delay if any. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may examine the sufficiency of the same. In the result, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order dated 15. 1. 1981 and remand, the case back to him to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. .;