Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No. 19 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned court below dismissed the revision application because the same is barred by delay of 152 days.
(2.) IT appears that petitioner had challenged the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghatshila in Miscellaneous Case No. 32 of 2013 under section 133 of the Cr.P.C. It appears that the aforesaid revision filed in the court of learned Sessions Judge after the delay of 240 days. However, petitioner filed an application (Annexure -2) under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of said delay, stating therein that since the learned SDM has not signed the order till 20.12.2013, therefore, the revision could not be filed earlier. Accordingly, it is prayed that the delay in filing the revision application be condoned. It appears that learned revisional court perused the impugned order and found that the learned SDM had signed the said order on 14.06.2013, thus, the revisional court had not accepted the allegations made by the petitioner that the said order singed by the learned SDM from back date. Accordingly, the court below rejected the condonation petition, consequently revision application also dismissed.
(3.) SRI V.P. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that from perusal of Annexure -1, it is clear that when petitioner filed an application on 21.12.2013 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate impugned order was not signed by him. Accordingly he submits that the learned SDM signed the said order from back date after receiving Annexure -1. He further submits that the same fact was reiterated in the condonation petition (Annexure -2) filed before the learned Sessions Judge, but the learned Sessions Judge without issuing notice to other party, rejected the condonation application on the ground that the order signed by the SDM bears the date of signing i.e. 14.06.2013. Sri Singh submits that Hon'ble Apex Court had held in a judgment reported in : AIR 1987 SC 1353 that it is the duty of the court to take liberal view in the matter of condonation of delay, so that the actual dispute between the parties could be decided. Accordingly, Sri Singh submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained.;