Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104094 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 924 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vipin Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Aravind Kumar Tripathi,Shashank Shri Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist-applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, Shri R. N. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant submits that the instant revision is beyond time by 207 days but delay in filing the instant revision has been duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. 4. He further submits that in para 5 revisionist-applicant specifically made an averment that he presented the instant revision in the Registry of this Court through online on 29.03.2023 but due to several technical reasons in the meantime, time expired and therefore, he could not file the instant revision in time and therefore, delay in filing the instant should be condoned. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer of condoning the delay and submit that delay condonation application and its affidavit has been filed very casually and however, in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application revisionist- applicant made an averment that on 29.03.2023, he presented the revision online before the Registry of this Court but due to technical reasons, he could not file the same in time but on 29.03.2023 revision has already become time barred as impugned order was passed on dated 30.09.2022 and there is no explanation in the entire delay condonation application and its affidavit that why from 30.09.2022 to 29.03.2023 revisionist could not present the revision in the Registry of this Court and therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay of 207 days in filing the instant revision and therefore, delay condonation application is liable to be dismissed. 6. They further submits that accordingly the instant revision should also be dismissed being time barred. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 8. Revisionist-applicant filed the instant revision against the impugned order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the court concerned but it reflects, there is delay of 207 days in filing the same. 9. From the record, it reflects that in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, revisionist-applicant made the following averment:- "5. That further the present revision was presented before Registry through online channel on 29.03.2023 but for several technical reasons regarding removal of defects, the time lapsed and as such is being filed physically. Now the earlier online presentation does not exist and the instant revision is the first and only revision in the subject matter." 10. Prima-facie the averment made in para 5 appears to vague in nature and very casually revisionist made an averment that due to several reasons, he could not file the revision in time and what were those technical reasons have not been disclosed by him. 11. Further, impugned order was passed by the court concerned on 30.09.2022 and even as per the revisionist-applicant, he presented the revision through online in the Registry of this Court on 29.03.2023 i.e. after about six months and considering this fact, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that by the time of presenting the revision through online, the revision has become time barred and there is no explanation that why revisionist could not approach this Court from 30.09.2022 (i.e. from the date of order) to 29.03.2023. 12. Therefore, from the discussion made above, I am of the view that there is no sufficient grounds to condone the dealy in filing the instant revision. 13. Accordingly, delay condonation application filed by the revisionist-applicant is hereby dismissed. Order on Criminal Revision As delay condonation application of the revisionist has already been dismissed, therefore, instant revision filed by him also stands dismissed being time barred. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Zafar Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad