Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1741 (RAJ)

Pankaj Lodha v. State of Rajasthan, through PP

2019-06-03

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner laying challenge to the order dated 12.03.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the learned Revisional Court), vide which, the petitioners revision petition has been rejected on the ground of delay. 2. Narrating the facts of the present case, Mr. Falgun Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had filed revision petition against the order dated 24.10.2018, with a delay of 25 days. The revision petition so filed by the petitioner was companied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein the petitioner had explained the reasons for delay; viz., the petitioner was out of town in connection with his business. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court was cited before the learned Revisional Court to buttress the submission that the petitioner’s revision petition should not be dismissed on the ground of delay. While asserting that the reasons indicated in the application were sufficient to show that he was prevented from sufficient reasons from filing the revision petition in time, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the contentions of Mr. Buch, submitted that a perusal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reveals that the same has been filed casually and no reasons worth the name have been indicated therein. Mr. Bhati, further submitted that in a criminal case, the accused should be more serious towards the case and he should take the proceedings with utmost diligence and promptitude. 4. Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that there is a delay of 25 days, which has been sought to be explained by the petitioner by pointing out that he was out of the town in connection with his business, this Court deems it expedient to allow the present petition to meet the ends of justice. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2019, passed by the learned Revisional Court is quashed and set aside. The petitioner’s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. The Revisional Court shall decide the petitioners revision petition on merits, in accordance with law.