Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. Cr. MP(M) No. 1536 of 2025 4.7.2025 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Dy. A.G., for the respondent/State. The applicant has preferred the present revision petition, against the judgment dated 16.1.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Cr. Appeal No. 71-G/X/2023/2022, titled as, ‘Baldev Singh versus State of H.P.’. 2. By way of judgment dated 16.1.2025, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 30.5.2022, and order of sentence dated 19.7.2022, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Crl. Case No. 111-II/2011, titled as, ‘State of H.P. versus Baldev Singh’. 3. Vide judgment of conviction, dated 30.5.2022 and order of sentence, dated 19.7.2022, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the applicant, for the commission of offence, punishable under Sections, in the following manner: Sr. No. Sections Sentence imposed Default 1. 279 IPC Simple Imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 500/- S.I. for one month 2. 304-A IPC Simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- S.I. for one month 3. 181 M.V. Act Fine of Rs. 500/- S.I. for 10 dyas. 4. Since, the revision petition has been filed, after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application has been filed by the applicant, for condonation of delay, which, as per the report of the Registry, is 43 days. Delay in filing the present revision petition, has been sought to be condoned, mainly on the ground that although the applicant had received the copy of judgment, dated 16.1.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, on 20.1.2025, but, when, he approached his counsel, he advised him to contact him in the month of March, 2025, due to winter vacations. Thereafter, the applicant has approached his counsel and filed the present revision petition. 5. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the present application. 6. When, put to notice, though, the respondent- State has not filed reply to the application, but the prayer made in the application, has been opposed by tooth and nail. 7. Heard. 8. Keeping in view the low legal literacy of the Indian masses, this Court is satisfied with the explanation, which has been given in the application, for condonation of delay, in filing the present petition. Moreover, the matter should be decided on merit, not on the technical grounds. 9. In view of this, delay in filing the present revision petition is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Cr. Revision Petition No. __________ 10. Vide order of even date, passed in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1536 of 2025, delay in filing the revision petition, has been ordered to be condoned. 11. Be registered. 12. Since certain arguable points are involved in the present petition, as such, the same is admitted for hearing. Cr. M.P. ST No. 4827 of 2025 13. Be registered. 14. Since the revision against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, will take sufficient long time, for its disposal, as such, the order of sentence dated 19.7.2022, is suspended during the pendency of the revision, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, alongwith 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) That the applicant shall deposit fine amount, if not deposited, within a period of four weeks. (iii) That the applicant shall not leave the country withou t the prior permission of the Court. 15. The application is, thus, disposed of. 16. 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, on or before the next date of hearing. (Virender Singh) Judge July 4, 2025 (kalpana)