HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 980 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 02, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1123 of 2022 (Yatendra Singh vs. Rubi Gupta), under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, by which the complaint moved by the revisionist has been dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 02, Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has taken a ground that on 03.03.2023 neither complainant nor his counsel was present before the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court and the complaint was dismissed in default. In the next paragraph of the affidavit, the revisionist has further stated that the counsel for revisionist namely, Sri Arvinid Shisodia died much before, i.e. on 30.10.2022. 4. On the other hand learned counsel submitted that if a counsel or a person who died, he can never be present at this earth by any stretch of imagination, therefore, the ground taken by the revisionist are self contradictory by itself. No other ground has been taken by the revisionist in the application for condonation of delay. 5. The said application is being opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and submitted that the said affidavit has been filed by some other person than the revisionist, though the revisionist is alive and reportedly not behind the Bar and very much available, but deliberately the said affidavit has been filed by someone else, not connected with the case. 5. Having regard to the fact that the grounds taken by the revisionist are not only false and baseless but contradictory to each and every. Moreover Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajaj Ahmad, Akhtar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Saurabh Yadav, Shivam Yadav Yatendra Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) one ground has been taken that neither the complainant nor the learned counsel could appear on the date of the order of dismiss in default was passed, thereafter another ground has been taken that counsel could not appear for the reason, that he died much earlier on 30.10.2022 and thus the revisionist has played both in hot and cold at the same time. The reason shown in the application for condonation of delay is neither proper nor reasonable and beyond the stage of imagination, the conduct of the revisionist is not found bonafide, therefore, no good ground is available in the application of condonation of delay. 6. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is dismissed. 7. The revision be consigned to record. October 13, 2025 Faridul CRLRD No. 980 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad