JUDGMENT M. SRINIVASAN, C.J.-The order of the Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan is wholly unsatisfactory in this matter. The appeal before the Sessions Judge under Section 59(2) of the Indian Forest Act was filed by the respondent herein. It is brought to my notice by the learned Assistant Advocate General that the respondent had written a letter dated 9-2-1993 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Division Nahan in response to letter No. 10012/Nahan dated 1-2-1993, which was a show cause notice addressed to him. In that letter, the respondent has categorically stated that the ownership and possession of the vehicle in question was not that of the respondent, but it was of the purchaser from him Shri Som Parkash from the date of purchase having been effected vide IKRARNAMA dated 12-11-1992. A copy of the IKRARNAMA was also sent along with the said letter. In the next paragraph, the respondent has categorically stated This is wrong to say that the applicant is owner of this vehicle." 2. In view of that statement, the appeal filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge may not be maintainable, but that aspect of the matter has not been considered at all by the Sessions Judge though it is stated that a reply was filed by the State Government before the Sessions Judge drawing his attention to the said letter of the respondent. 3. Secondly, the view taken by the Sessions Judge on the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act is erroneous. This Court has recently considered the provisions of Section 69 and laid down the law relating to the presumption under that section in Criminal Revision No. 137 of 1994 Gurmail Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, by its judgment dated 8-5-1997. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the Sessions Judge was passed on 20-4-1995 whereas the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on 23-8-1996 only and, therefore, this petition should not be considered on merits. It is to be mentioned that the petitioner herein had filed earlier a Criminal Revision No 47/96 in this Court and on 3-7-1996. This Court dismissed that petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if otherwise maintainable under the law. It is to be mentioned that the petitioner herein had filed earlier a Criminal Revision No 47/96 in this Court and on 3-7-1996. This Court dismissed that petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if otherwise maintainable under the law. There is no period of limitation fixed for petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the delay in approaching this Court on the part of the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is properly explained and this petition can be entertained by this Court. 5. In the circumstances, the order of the Sessions Judge passed in Criminal appeal No. 21-N/10 of 1994 dated 20 4-1995 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Sessions Judge, Nahan. In the first instance, he shall consider the question of maintainability of the appeal before him at the instance of the respondent herein inasmuch as he had dis-claimed expressly the ownership and possession of the vehicle and stated that it was with Som Parkash to whom he had already sold on 12-11-1992. If the Sessions Judge holds that the appeal was maintainable at the instance of the respondent herein he shall consider the question of presumption under Section 69 of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Court in Criminal Revision No. 137 of 1994 dated 8-5-1997. 6. With the above directions, this petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 7. The parties are directed to appear before the Sessions Judge, Nahan on 1-7-1997. Petition allowed.