Birender Singh vs. State of H.P. Cr.M.P(M) No. 2768 of 2024 Reserved on 30.04.2026. 03.06.2026 Present: Mr Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. The revisionist/applicant has filed the present application for condonation of 132 days delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, had framed the charges against the applicant on 10.04.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant’s Counsel applied for a copy of the order on 10.04.2024 and received the copy on 01.05.2024. The applicant collected all the documents and brief from his counsel in August, 2024 and contacted the learned counsel in October, 2024. He handed over the documents to the learned counsel to file the revision. The revision was prepared and filed in the third week of November, 2024. There is a delay of 132 days in filing the revision, which is due to the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Hence, the application. 2. No reply to the application was filed. 3. I have heard Mr Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant could not file the revision within time. He was confined to the prison and was released by this Court on 29.04.2024. The applicant contacted the learned counsel after arranging the money in October, 2024, who prepared the revision and filed it in the third week of November, 2024. The applicant has sufficient cause for the condonation of the delay. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 5. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the applicant has not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The applicant was released on bail in April, 2024, and he has not assigned any reason as to why he waited till October, 2024 to contact his counsel. The delay can be condoned only on a sufficient cause and not as a matter of generosity. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The applicant has filed his affidavit in which he stated that he was arrested on 26.04.2023 and was released by the Court on 29.04.2024. Since the applicant was in jail, he was prevented from pursuing his remedies due to his incarceration. 8. The applicant asserted that he arranged the funds and thereafter contacted his counsel in October, 2024. This plea is duly supported by an affidavit. This shows that the applicant was unable to contact the learned counsel because of the paucity of funds. A person cannot be penalised for his poverty; therefore, the applicant has sufficient reason for the condonation of the delay. 9. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision (ST No. 12238) of 2024 10. The delay in filing the revision has been condoned as per the order passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2768 of 2024. It be registered. 11. A copy of the revision be supplied to the learned Deputy Advocate General and the matter be listed for consideration after two weeks. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 3rd June, 2026 (Nikita)