CBI Vs. Prabhakar Cr.MP(M) No. 2434 of 2024 Reserved on: 16.9.2025 22.09.2025 Present: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant/petitioner. M/s Chandan Goel and K.V. Balakrishnan, Advocates, for the respondent. The applicant-petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of 144 days’ 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 the learned Special Judge CBI, Shimla. The Registry returned the revision petition on 20.08.2024 with the observation that separate petitions were to be filed against different case numbers mentioned in the heading/prayer clause of the petition. The applicant/petitioner applied for a certified copy of the judgment, which was supplied on 10.09.2024. The 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 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 the lack of sufficient cause. It was asserted that no reason justifying the delay in filing the appeal has been assigned. The application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed without establishing a valid, reasonable and satisfactory explanation. The reasons are vague and unsubstantiated. The applicant has to follow the limitations prescribed for filing the revision and ensure that the approvals are obtained within the time. The administrative delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The applicant did not mention the date of filing the application, and mentioned the date of the supply of the certified copy. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant/petitioner and M/s Chandan Goel and K.V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the applicant/petitioner, submitted that the applicant/petitioner had filed a common petition against the order passed by the 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 and filed the 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 condoned. 5. Mr K.V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent-accused, submitted that the revision petition was filed on 31.8.2024. Certified copy was received on 10.9.2024. The application for condonation of delay was filed on 5.10.2024. The judgment was passed on 14.5.2024. The limitation for filing the revision expired on 12.8.2024. The applicant only mentioned various dates and not the reason for the delay. The applicant has to explain not only the delay caused after the expiry of the limitation but also the reason for not filing the revision within the prescribed period of limitation. Administrative lethargy is no reason to condone the delay. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others 2025 INSC 1104 in support of his submission. 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. Therefore, the same has to be accepted as correct. 8. 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. 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 submission that the applicant has not assigned any reason for the delay will not help the respondent because originally, a single petition challenging the order was filed. The learned Trial Court had also passed a common order in multiple cases, and CBI cannot be faulted for challenging this order by filing a common petition. However, the Registry objected to the filing of a common petition. CBI realised that multiple petitions were to be filed, and a single petition was not sufficient. This was as per the legal advice. A person cannot be penalised for the fault of his counsel, and the delay leading to filing of multiple petitions after having filed a single petition is properly explained. 10. It was submitted that the administrative lethargy is no reason for the condonation of delay. In the present case, there is no administrative lethargy. The delay occurred because a single petition was filed initially, and the applicant/petitioner had to file multiple petitions after the objection of the Registry. 11. Hence, the submission that the delay has not been explained properly cannot be accepted. 12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the delay 144 days’ in filing the petition is ordered to be condoned. 13. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. _____ of 2025 Cr. Revision (ST) No. 11363 of 2024 14. Vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2434 of 2024, the delay in filing the petition has been condoned. The petition be registered. 15. M/s Chandan Goel and K.V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respondent. Copy of the petition be supplied to learned counsel. 16. Record of learned Trial Court be requisitioned and the matter be listed for consideration thereafter. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 22nd September, 2025 (Chander)