Full Judgment
CRR No.1820/2012 Criminal Revision No.1820/2012 7.1.2013 Shri Ashish Kurmi, counsel for the applicants.
Shri P.C.Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent.
Heard on I.A.No.20527/2012, an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The applicants have moved a revision application against the order dated 13.4.012 with delay of 51 days.
The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant No.4 was not present on that day and initially charges were not framed but, they were framed later on.
After getting the copy of the impugned order, the revision application has been filed.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that delay may be condoned.
Learned Panel lawyer for the Station opposes the application.
If any accused moves an application under section 317 of the Cr.P.C.and he is represented by his Advocate then, he cannot get any advantage of his not appearance.
It is apparent that the applicants Kamlesh, Manmohan and Pahlad were present at the time of framing of charges and their plea was recorded by the trial Court and they CRR No.1820/2012 appended their signatures below the plea.
Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that they did not have any knowledge of the order.
There is no acceptable ground mentioned for condonation of delay of 51 days.
Under such circumstances, no delay can be condoned, without any appropriate basis.
No satisfactory reason has been shown by the applicants.
Hence, application under section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be accepted.
Consequently, I.A.No.20527/2012 is hereby dismissed and hence, the present revision is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra