[2025:RJ-JP:2616] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6620/2024 Regional Transport Officer-II, Office Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. Through D.T.O. Jaipur II ----Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Ganganagar Vehicles Private Limited, Address Khasra No. 485, Thikriya, Jaipur Ajmer Highway, NH-8, Omaxe City, Jaipur. 2. Jaynarayan Jat Son of Shri Devi Lal Jat, Resident Ward No. 01, Badhpipliyan, Bhanwaria Ki Dhani, Neendar, Rajawas, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG Mr. Sachin Singh Mr. Nripraj Singh For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2025 1. The instant misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.9, Jaipur Metro-Second, in Criminal Revision Petition No.12/2024 (CIS No.145/2024) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.03.2023 has been rejected on the ground of limitation as the same was barred by Limitation Act. Counsel submits that the accused-respondents were vehicle dealer, and the vehicle in question was sold by them without any permanent or temporary registration to the owner of the vehicle. [2025:RJ-JP:2616] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6620/2024] The same is punishable for the offence under Section 192B of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel submits that a criminal complaint was submitted against them along with the driver. Counsel submits that the driver of the vehicle made a confession and on the basis of this confession, the matter was disposed of and no cognizance was taken against the owner and the vehicle dealer. 2. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court by way of filing revision petition along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Counsel submits that there was a delay of 6 months after getting the certified copy of the order impugned. Counsel submits that the reasons of delay were explained in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but without going into the said reasons given by the petitioner, the application filed under Section 5 was rejected and accordingly, the instant revision petition was also rejected. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Revisional Court indicates that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was submitted wherein the reasons given by the petitioner is that after getting certified copy of the order, consultation was made with the Higher Officers and thereafter, opinion of the Public Prosecutor was sought, hence, in the aforesaid process the delay has occurred. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons of delay were justified, hence, under these circumstances, the Revisional [2025:RJ-JP:2616] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6620/2024] Court was expected to hear and decide the revision petition submitted by the petitioner on its merits. In view of above, the order impugned dated 10.07.2024 stands quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed. 6. The matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court i.e. Additional Session Judge No.9, Jaipur Metro-Second, to decide the revision petition on its merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Revisional Court would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/10