JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - The petitioner – Sarabjit Singh against whom FIR No.31 dated 25.2.2005 under Section 379/411 IPC, P.S. Shimlapuri, Ludhiana was registered, was convicted by the Judicial Magtistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide his judgment dated 2.4.2008 and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days. 2. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 12.10.2010. 3. It is a matter of record that the petitioner who was on bail during the pendency of his appeal, did not appear before the Appellate Court since 21.12.2009 and remained absent despite issuance of non-bailable warrants. 4. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2012 challenging the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge as well as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby he has been convicted. Since this revision petition is barred by limitation, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay. Though it has been mentioned that there is a delay of 379 days in filing this revision petition, but the averments made in the application for condonation of delay are totally out of context. It may also be noticed that in the title of the revision petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is in custody and confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana, however, no date of surrender of the petitioner before the authorities in compliance of the impugned judgments has been mentioned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that in fact the petitioner has not submitted to the Court of jurisdiction for serving the sentence awarded by the Courts below, but was actually apprehended in some other case in the month of August, 2011. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to condone the delay of 379 days in filing this revision petition as no plausible reason is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner not to file the instant revision petition well within time. A person who is absconding from the process of law cannot be granted any benefit. 7. Thus, prayer for condoning the delay in filing this revision petition is rejected. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. ----------------