JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.6.99 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merat whereby application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was convicted under 5 Section 304-A and 279 IPC by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Merta by judgment dated 30.6.98. Appeal was preferred before the learned Appellate Court on 17.5.99 i.e. 101/2, months' beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the delay. The learned Appellate Court considered the grounds of delay as stated in the application and the affidavit of petitioner's mother Gangli in support of said application. 3. The petitioner stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that when the Judgment was pronounced on 30.6.98, on the same day, his Advocate got his thumb impression on Vakalatnama. The petitioner had directed the learned counsel to file an appeal. The learned counsel assured the petitioner to file the appeal and also told him that he will inform him. The petitioner was also informed by the counsel that the decision of appeal will take at least 11/2 years and if his presence would be required, he will be informed Accordingly. Thus the petitioner all alone remained under the impression that his counsel will inform him. Thereafter the elder brother of petitioner Dula Ram died. He faced great financial hardship. He, therefore, went to Madras and served there as driver. He came back in the village on 2.5.99 and he was arrested on 4.5.99 by police of P.S. Pandukala. For the first time, he came to know that appeal was not filed. 4. An affidavit of Gangli has also been filed in which she has stated that on the date of Judgment, she accompanied the petitioner in the court and in his presence the petitioner had given direction to the Advocate to tile appeal and the petitioner gave his thumb impression on the Vakalatnama. She has also stated the other facts given in the application filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the grounds set out by the petitioner in the application to explain the delay. She has also stated the other facts given in the application filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the grounds set out by the petitioner in the application to explain the delay. The learned Sessions Judge did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay on the following reasons - (i) The petitioner has not disclosed the name of Advocate to whom he gave direction to file the appeal, (ii) The petitioner has not given specific date as to when he went to Madras to serve as driver, (iii) The court suspended the sentence and allowed one month's time and when he returned from Madras, it was his duty to contact the Advocate to file the appeal, (iv) The affidavit filed by Gangli also suffers from vagueness and specific facts have not been given by her. The petitioner has not filed his own affidavit to substantiate the facts disclosed in the application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was ts in jail, therefore, he could not file the affidavit. it is also submitted that the Advocate's name was not disclosed in the application because the name of Advocate finds place in the Judgment and on the same day, the sentence was suspended. It is vehemently contended that the court should take liberal view in condoning the delay in order to impart substantial justice and the approach should be of justice oriented. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that when the petitioner himself has not been able to make out the case for sufficient cause by giving clear and specific facts, then there is no question of taking any liberal view or so-called justice oriented approach. 8. I have given my careful considerations to the rival submissions. I have also perused the impugned order and the reasons assigned therein to reject the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. I am conscious of this fact that court should take liberal view and its approach should be of justice oriented and matters are to be decided on merits. But in the instant case, the delay is of 102 months, reasons have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge in his order which does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. 9. I do not find any manifest error in the impugned order. But in the instant case, the delay is of 102 months, reasons have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge in his order which does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. 9. I do not find any manifest error in the impugned order. It is not a case that learned Sessions Judge ignored any fact as stated by the petitioner or misread the facts given in the application or the affidavit. Therefore, I am of the view that no case is made to interfere in the impugned order while exercising the revisional powers. The revision petition is devoid of any merit.Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******