1 2025:CGHC:10242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 758 of 2025 Mohd. Aslam S/o Mohd. Kalam Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Jhingo, Tahsil - Ra- jpur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Harinath S/o Late Kunda Aged About 66 Years R/o Jhingo, Tahsil - Rajpur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh 2 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate Rajpur, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattis- garh ... Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. G.L. Uike, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Justice Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. This present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2025 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balarampur- Ramanuganj Chhattisgarh arising out of order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpur in which application under Section 05 for condonation of delay in filing the revision under section 397/399 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. The case in nutshell is such that respondent no. 1 has moved an application on 13.08.2020 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging in it that he is the owner and is in possession of land bearing Khasra 2 No. 31/16, 31/18, 35/3, 36/3 and 79/3 area 0.351,0.255,0.349, 0.279 and 0.203 total five plots, in District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh and he is doing agricultural operation upon the said land. Further he stated that petitioner has purchased land bearing Khasra No. 31/13 area 0.328 hectors and Khasra No. 31/21 area 0.328 hectors total area 0.656 hectors. The petitioner has corrected map in road site and petitioner is trying to get the possession of respondent land and thereafter the respondent herein has filed an application under Section 115 and 116 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code which is pending. It is alleged that the petitioner is trying to occupy the land of the respondent and has ploughed upon the said land and son of the respondent has made a complaint to the police but no action has been taken against the petitioner. 3. An application under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent and notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajpur directed Patwari and the police to submit inquiry report. Learned SDM after hearing the parties, allowed the said application holding that 2 months prior from the date of filing of application dated 08.07.2020 respondent no. 1 was found in possession of disputed land which has been confirmed by Panchnama prepared by the concerned Halka Patwari. Hence the petitioner herein was directed not to interfere into the possession of the respondent no. 1 land. Against the said order, a revision along with delay application under Section 05 of the Limitation Act, was preferred by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and also the revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Second Additional Sessions Judge ought to have considered this fact that the petitioner could not 3 move revision application within time limit as prescribed under the provision due to lack of knowledge of the order passed against him by the concerned SDM, Rajpur. That there is proper and sufficient cause that prevented the petitioner from moving the condonation application for filing revision under Section 397/399 of Cr.P.C. within stipulated time. He contended that learned Sessions Judge have not considered this fact that the petitioner is having good case on merits, however due to technical fault and lack of knowledge of the order passed against him, he could not prefer revision on stipulated time period, which ought to have considered to condone the delay in filing revision. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 and the further prays for allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is a huge delay in filing of the application. Moreover there is no strong ground to admit that the huge delay happened due to what reason. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the respective parties, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. On perusal of record this court finds that the petitioner has presented a revision against the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the court of SDM, Rajpur under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner could not get the information about the order dated 29.08.2022 of the trial court on the date of passing the order. On knowing the order, the revision application was submitted by the petitioner stating that the delay has not been caused by the petitioner deliberately. The total delay in submitting the application from the date of information of the order is 315 days, but after considering the time limit of 4 copy, the delay is 312 days. In the considered opinion of this court the petitioner was aware of the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the court of SDM, Rajpur in the said case from the date of order itself and the above order was passed in the presence of both the parties. The petitioner himself has admitted that there is a delay of 315 days in submitting the application from the date of information dated 02.09.2022 and there has been a delay of 312 days after adjusting the time spent in submitting the copy of the application and obtaining the copy, but the petitioner has not given any explanation of the day to day reason for the delay in his application. This shows that the delay is deliberately caused. It is also observed that the order of the Court of SDM bears the signature of the revisionist, in such a situation, it cannot be said that he was not in knowledge of the petitioner. 8. As per provision of Section 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - to any court for the exercise of its power of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) there is a period of limitation of 90 days that is from the date of the decree or order or sentence sought to be revised. In the present case there is a delay of 312 days in filing of the revision petition by the petitioner. No doubt sufficient cause for the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act must receive liberal construction as to advance substantial delay which is required in the interest of justice. Here in this case there is gross negligence/deliberate in action or lack of bonafide mistake is clearly seen. 9. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court there seems to be no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in rejecting application under Section 5 for condonation of delay by the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, district- Balrampur, 5 Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh arising out of order dated 29.08.2022 passed by SDM, Rajpur on the ground of not showing sufficient reasons for delay in 312 days in filing of the revision. Hence the present petition seeking set aside of impugned order dated 16.01.2025 and allowing the revision on merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is hereby dismissed. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge