- (1.) PRESENT interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 1151 days delay in filing the instant criminal revision for the reasons stated in the petition as also supplementary petition of the interlocutory application filed on 15.12.2009.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has brought about series of documents in support of the fact related to the illness and treatment of his three sons suffering from mental disease due to which he could not pursue his case and the revision could not be filed within the period of limitation. List of prescriptions and line of treatments that were accorded to the petitioner's sons would indicate that all his three sons, right from the year 2001, are still under treatment for mental disorder and in support whereof, prescriptions have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit of the interlocutory application No. 1671 of 2009. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the case was instituted in the year 1981 which was disposed of after 18 years in the year 1999 which culminated conviction of the petitioner and he was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and again six months for his conviction under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Petitioner immediately preferred an appeal in the year 1999 but since the copy of the judgment of the Trial Court was missing, certified copy of the judgment could not be obtained and finally, appeal was dismissed after seven years on 25.2.2006. Petitioner was trying to locate and was pursuing for the certified copy of the judgment passed by the trial Court which could not be obtained and only because of the intervening circumstances and on account of illness of all his three sons, he could not file revision petition within time which was beyond his control and for the reasons stated, the delay in filing the revision petition may be condoned.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the CBI opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner was constantly in touch with his counsel and he had nothing to do in filing of the criminal revision within the period of limitation before this Court.;