State of H.P. Vs. C (juvenile) Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2024 Reserved on:17.07.2026 27.07.2026 Present: Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. None for the respondent. Cr. MP No. 5810 of 2025 The applicant/State has filed the present application for impleading Santu, Karamveer and Santosh, who were discharged by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur District, Bilaspur, H.P. (Learned Trial Court). It is asserted that the State had mentioned the name of the juvenile in the cause title in place of these persons. The juvenile was not an accused before the learned Trial Court, and he was never discharged. He was a co-accused, but he was tried as a juvenile as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The criminal revision was drafted, and the name of the juvenile was mentioned instead of the names of the accused before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the names of Santu, Karamveer and Sanotsh be added in the memo of parties. 2. I have heard Mr Lokender Kutlehria, 2 learned Additional Advocate General, for the petitioner/State. None appeared on behalf of the respondents; therefore, none could be heard on their behalf. 3. Mr Lokender Kultehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner/State, submitted that the name of the juvenile was inadvertently mentioned. The juvenile was not tried by the learned trial Court but was separately tried by the Juvenile Justice Board. The names of Santu, Karmaveer and Santosh were required to be mentioned in the memo of parties. The error was bona fide. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and Santu, Karmaveer and Santosh be added in the memo of parties as respondents 4. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 5. Section 21 of the Limitation Act deals with the effect of substituting a new plaintiff or defendant and provides that where a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was made a 3 party. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for the addition of parties. Therefore, no specific provision has been enacted by the legislature for dealing with the addition of parties to the appeal/revision. However, the principle laid down under Section 21 of the Limitation Act can be applied to the present case because it is similar to the addition of a party in a suit or appeal. 6. The learned Trial Court had passed an order on 20.08.2024; the period of limitation for filing a revision is 90 days. Therefore, the revision against Santu, Karmaveer and Santosh would have been barred on 17.11.2025 by limitation on 17.10.2025, the date of filing the application for addition. The petitioner/applicant has also not filed any application for condonation of delay; therefore, the application cannot be allowed and is ordered to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Cr. Revision No. 704 of 2024 7. List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 27th July, 2026. (Ravinder)