JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Mr. Jitendra Upadhyay, Advocate. 2. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. This petition has been filed for the following relief: “(a) For quashing the order dated 16-2-2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – VI, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No.282 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the revision preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 5-10-2004 and 13-9-2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in CLA Case No.545/03 has been rejected; (b) quashing the order dated 5-10-2004 passed learned Judicial magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner for dropping filed by the petitioner for dropping proceeding has been rejected; (c) and order dated 13-9-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner; which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the impugned order dated 16.02.2008, submits that the revision was filed against the order dated 05.10.2004 and 13.09.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.L.A. No.545 of 2003. He submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad had rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner and also rejected the petition for dropping the proceedings against the accused. 5. Counsel submits that the petitioner had filed a specific petition for dropping the proceedings on account of the fact that there was delay in filing the case. The counsel by referring to the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 has referred to Section 27 of the said Act and has submitted that the case was lodged beyond the period of limitation and as per the records received from the lower court, a petition for condonation of delay was filed. The counsel further submits that the learned revisional court while deciding the case and considering the point of limitation, has held that the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad had taken cognizance after perusing the entire documents filed by the complainant and the complainant has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing the complaint petition, under such circumstances it is deemed that the delay was condoned, although, there is no specific order in this regard. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1995) 1 SCC 42 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and Others) as well as (2008) 13 SCC 229 (P.K. Choudhary Vs. Commander, 48 BRTF GREF) to submit that delay in launching prosecution cannot be condoned without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused and he further submits that in the instant case, no such opportunity of hearing was granted to the accused prior to taking cognizance of the offence and admittedly the delay was never condoned although a petition for condonation of delay was filed. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand does not dispute the proposition of law that a notice is required to be issued prior to condoning the delay and accordingly, she submits that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to respond to the petition for condonation of delay filed by the prosecution. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly delay in filing the case was not condoned by the learned court below before taking cognizance although admittedly, a petition for condonation of delay was filed. Further, the learned revisional court held that delay is deemed to have been condoned by the learned court below as the cognizance was taken. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the learned revisional court erred in law while holding that delay in filing the complaint case was deemed to have been condoned as cognizance was taken. 10. This Court is of the considered view that condonation of delay in filing the case is not a mere formality. It not only requires due application of mind but also hearing the other side. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 282/2004 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the said authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned revisional court, himself or through a counsel on 29.11.2019. 12. This petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 14. Revision No. 282/2004 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the said authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned revisional court, himself or through a counsel on 29.11.2019. 12. This petition is accordingly disposed of. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. Office is directed to immediately remit the lower court records to the concerned court.