Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46238 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 300 of 2019 Revisionist :- Umesh Alias Rajnu Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Gulam Mustafa,Amar Singh,Anoop Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocare,Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Ravinder Kumar Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. (Criminal Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay/I.A. No.29287/2019) 1. Heard Shri Anoop Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Unnao by means of which the application preferred under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and by means of the order dated 27.10.2015 the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 have been framed. 3. The instant revision has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. The delay is about 03 years and 29 days as on 13.02.2019 and 03 years 01 month and 12 days as on 27.02.2019. 4. For coming to the conclusion as to whether the explanation in the application seeking condonation of delay is sufficient, it would be apt to indicate that :- (i) Earlier an application seeking discharge was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 28.08.2014. (ii) Challenging the said order the revisionist approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482/378/407 No.3801 of 2014 (Umesh @ Ranju Mishra Vs. The State of U.P. and Anr.) and this application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 10th March, 2015. Subsequent to the same, an application seeking restoration was also rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.07.2015. (iii) Another application under Section 482/378/407 No.912 of 2019 (Umesh @ Ranju Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & another) was preferred by the revisionist challenging the order dated 17.10.2015 and after some arguments the counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said petition and taking note of the prayer sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court consigned the matter to record vide order dated 05.02.2019. (iv) The first application seeking discharge was filed on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer (in short "I.O."). (v) Subsequent application seeking discharge was filed by the present revisionist on the basis of report of the CBCID dated 14.09.2015. 5. At this stage, on being asked learned counsel for the revisionist fairly states that before the trial court the trial is at the stage of recording of statement of the prosecution witnesses. 6. Now reverting to the application seeking condonation of delay. 7. Considered the reasons/grounds as indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay as also the supplementary affidavit/better affidavit dated 12.04.2022 and upon due consideration, this Court finds that the revisionist for condoning the delay has alleged that the proper advise was not provided to the councerned counsel therefore the revision was not filed within the reasonable time. The praragraph 7 of the better affidavit in this regard is extracted herein under :- "7. That it is stated that the Revisionist was not aware about the legal position as he knows that earlier Discharge Application has been rejected, so now Second Application cannot be challenged while his earlier Counsel had also not advised him regarding challenging the rejection of the discharge application." 8. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the firm view that the reasons as indicated in the above quoted paragraph are not sufficient to condone the delay and accordingly, this Court is neither inclined to issue notice to opposite party No.2 nor is inclined to condone the delay of 03 years and 29 days as on 13.02.2019 and 03 years, 01 month and 12 days as on 27.02.2019. Therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. (Order on the Memo of Revision) Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected, therefore, the revision cannot survive and the same is rejected. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench