Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Yoginder Verma Cr.MP(M) No.2433 of 2024 09.04.2025 Present: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant/petitioner. M/s Atul Jhingan and Shilpa Sood, Advocates, for the respondent. The applicant-petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision before this Court. It has been asserted that the applicant had filed a criminal revision for setting aside the judgment/order dated 14.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge CBI, Shimla. The Registry returned the revision petition on 20.08.2024 with the observation that separate petitions were not filed against different case numbers mentioned in the heading/prayer clause of the petition. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the judgment, which was supplied on 10.09.2024. The applicant/petitioner filed separate revision petitions as per the objections raised by the Registry. There was a delay of 25 days in filing the revision, which occurred due to the mistake on the part of the applicant/petitioner in filing a common petition against the orders passed in different cases; hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and the applicant having not come to the Court with clean hand. The content of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the applicant has not disclosed on which date the certified copy of the judgment was applied for and when the same was prepared and received. The limitation period of 90 days expired on 11.08.2024. The earlier petition was returned by the Registry on 20.08.2024. The applicant was not diligent in applying for the certified copy and obtaining it in time. There is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay; hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner and M/s Atul Jhingan & Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had filed a common petition against the order passed by learned Special Judge, CBI. The common petition was held to be not maintainable by the Registry and was returned with the observations that separate petitions were required to be filed. The applicant applied for the certified copy of the judgment and filed separate revisions. The delay occurred due to the objections raised by the Registry and taking the certified copies; hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be ordered to be condoned. 5. Mr Atul Jhingan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the applicant/petitioner has made vague averments in the application. The date of applying for the certified copy and the date of obtaining the certified copy were deliberately not mentioned. The applicant has to explain each day’s delay, which has not been explained in the present case. There is no sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present application; hence, he prayed that the present application be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The applicant has specifically asserted in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, that the Registry had objected to the filing of a common petition against the order passed in two different cases. This averment was not denied in reply. It was submitted that the date of application was not mentioned. This date can be ascertained from the certified copy annexed to the petition, which shows that the application was filed on 29.08.2024. The copy was prepared on 02.09.2024, and it was delivered on 09.09.2024. 8. Hence, the plea that the application is bad because the date of filing of the application, date of preparation of the copy and date of delivery were not mentioned is not acceptable. 9. The delay occurred due to an error on the part of learned counsel, who filed a single petition instead of separate petitions, and a party cannot be held liable for the fault of his counsel. Therefore, there is sufficient reason for the condonation of delay. 10. Consequently, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the petition is ordered to be condoned. 11. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. _____ of 2025 12. Vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2433 of 2024, the delay in filing the petition has been condoned. The petition be registered. 13. Mr. Atul Jhingan, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the petitioner. Copy of the petition be supplied to the learned counsel. Record of learned Trial Court be requisitioned and the matter be listed for consideration thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 9th April, 2025 (Ritu)