1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1088 of 2025 Reserved on : 16.7.2025 Decided on: 31.7.2025 Kewal Krishan … Applicant Versus State of H.P. …Respondent/non-applicant _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Applicant : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate non-applicant General with Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G. Virender Singh, Judge Applicant Kewal Krishan has filed the accompanying Revision Petition, against the order dated 20.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 20.11.2024, had dismissed the application under Section 451 of Cr. P.C., bearing No. 2162 of 2024 in Session Trial Case No. 1 of 2024, moved by the applicant. 3. Since, the revision petition, has been filed after the period of limitation, as such, present application, under 2 Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed to condone the delay, which, as per the report of the Registry, is 156 days. 4. Delay has been sought to be condoned mainly on the ground that the applicant, being retired ex-serviceman, was not aware about the limitation for assailing the said order. It is the further case of the applicant that he has fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer, for investigation of the case, and according to him, he was assured by the Investigating Officer that after completion of investigation, his bank account will be de-freezed, if not found guilty. However, after completion of one year and six months of the investigation, the bank account was not de-freezed. 5. According to the applicant, in the said bank account, he used to receive his pension. 6. On the basis of above facts, applicant has sought the condonation of delay, in filing the accompanying Revision Petition. 7. The application has duly been supported by an affidavit. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, vide order dated 20.11.2024, by virtue of which, indulgence of the learned trial Court was sought to de-freeze the Saving Bank Account No. 3 20045958019, maintained with the State Bank of India, Branch Amb, District Una, H.P. 9. The aforesaid bank account has been freezed by the Police, relating to case FIR No. 266 of 2023, dated 19.10.2023, registered under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. 10. The factual position with regard to the fact that applicant is an ex-serviceman, has not been disputed. Even otherwise, while considering the plea of limitation, a liberal approach has to be adopted by the Court, as, there is nothing in the reply to demonstrate the object, which the applicant is going to achieve, in filing the Revision Petition, after the prescribed period of limitation, as alleged, had he not been prevented to do so, for the reasons, mentioned in the application. 11. In the reply, no negligence or inaction, on the part of the applicant has been pleaded. 12. The only objection, which has been taken in the reply, is that the applicant has intentionally or deliberately filed the Criminal Revision, at a belated stage, whereas, application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide oder dated 20.11.2024, by virtue 4 of which, he has sought de-freezing of his saving bank account. 13. In view of above, delay in filing the Revision Petition, is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision No._______ 14. Vide order of even date, passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1088 of 2025, delay in filing the present Cr. Revision has been ordered to be condoned. 15. Be Registered. (Virender Singh) Judge 31.7.2025 Kalpana