Hamir Chand versus State of H.P. Cr. Revision No. of 2025 30.05.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the respondent. Cr.MP No.1210 of 2025 Reply to the application not filed. Further adjournment for this purpose is not justifiable. Applicant Hamir Chand has preferred the accompanying revision petition against the judgment dated 7.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.7-G/X/2023/2021, titled as Hamir Chand Vs. State of H.P. Since, the revision petition has been filed, by the petitioner, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed for condonation of 18 days delay, as occurred in filing the accompanying revision petition, on the ground that after passing of the judgment by the learned Appellate Court, on 7.1.2025, he was adviced to file separate revision petitions against the common judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. It has also been pleaded in the application that the applicant/petitioner was directed to apply for fresh certified copy of judgments passed by both the Courts below. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. The application is supported by an affidavit. Although, reply to the application has not been filed, however, the prayer, so made, in the application, has been opposed by tooth and nail, by arguing that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. Considering the true import of the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay is liable to be condoned, as the sentence of the applicant has been enhanced from three months to seven years. Considering all these facts, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. of 2023. Vide order of the even date, passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1210 of 2025, the delay in filing the revision petition has been ordered to be condoned, as such, the revision petition be registered. Considering the fact that the applicant is having permanent abode in District Kangra, before proceeding further, report of Probation Officer be called for, for the next date of hearing. List on 27th June, 2025. Cr.MPST No.3675/25 Since the disposal of the revision, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to herein-above, will take sufficient long time, as such, the order of sentence dated 07.01.2025, is suspended during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions: (i) Applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks from today, with an undertaking that in the event of final dismissal of the revision petition, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remainder substantive sentence; ii) Applicant shall deposit amount of fine, within a period of four weeks from today, if any, already deposited. ii) Applicant shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. The application is, thus, disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court, with the direction that the report of compliance of this order be submitted to this Court within a period of eight weeks. (Virender Singh) Judge May 30, 2025 (ps)