1 2025:CGHC:54974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1048 of 2025 Prem Lal Dewangan (Wrongly Mentioned As Dewangan) S/o Shankar Lal Dewangan Aged About 48 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 39 Years ) R/o Quarter No. 82, Ridhi Sidhi Colony Dongargaon Road Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Presently R/o Village Mohdha Tahsil Dongargaon Distict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rajhara Blod District - Balod (C.G. ) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vivek Shama, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. Heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in Criminal Revision No.737/2023 by which the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2 3. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was accused and the respondent is the prosecution before the trial Court. For the sake of brevity, the parties will be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 4. An FIR bearing Crime No. 192/2015 was registered against the petitioner and other accused person alleging inter alia that in the Year, 2013 the petitioner and other accused persons being the Director of the Yalco Saving and Credit Co-operative Limited Company and Yalco Real Estate and Agro Farming Limited has taken the money from 925 persons in the name of investment and assured that they will give the land to these 925 person. Not only this in order to cheat the 925 persons, the petitioner and the co-accused persons have prepared the forged documents and used the forged documents as genuine and thereby caused loss of Rs.2,08,04,462/-. 5. On these allegation, the police of Police Station-Rajhara, Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) has registered the FIR against the petitioner and other accused person and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet Under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 3, 4, 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, Section 58-F of the R.B.I. Act, 1934 and Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the petitioner and the other accused persons. 3 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balod in Case No.506/2021 has framed the charges against the petitioner on 05/12/2022 for the commission of offence which is punishable Under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 3, 4, 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 58-F of the R.B.I. Act, 1934. 7. Against the order dated 05/12/2022, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Revision before the Session Court, Balod along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. 8. The First Additional Session Judge, Balod vide its order dated 12/06/2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.737/2023 has dismissed the revision on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Hence this petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 12/06/2024 passed by the First Additional Session Judge, Balod in Criminal Revision No.737/2023 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The First Additional Session Judge, Balod failed to see that it is well settled principal of law that the case has to be decided on its own merits and not on technicalities. It is well settled principal of law that the law that it is very elementary and well understood that courts should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in dealing with the applications for 4 condonation of the delay and rather follow a pragmatic line to advance substantial justice. He further submits that the First Additional Session Judge, Balod failed to see that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the courts have to adopt liberal approach to advance justice. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the order dated 12/06/2024 passed by First Additional Session Judge, Balod in Criminal Revision No.737/2023 and remanded back the matter to the Session Court, Balod for deciding the revision of the petitioner on merits in the interest of justice. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent supports impugned order and submits that impugned order is well merited and has been passed after considering the entire material available on record therefore, it is not a case to set aside of the impugned order, hence, the same may be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering that while passing the order, the trial Court observed that the limitation for revision is 90 days, but this revision has been filed almost a year after the date of the order. The 5 revisioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with his revision application, citing his ill health and his absence from work, which prevented him from filing the application within the stipulated time. He has not produced any medical evidence regarding his ill health, nor has he produced any evidence or proof regarding where he went for employment and when. Thus, the reason given by the revisionist/applicant for delay in filing the revision is not bona fide and hence the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and the revision is not registered as it is not within the time limit. 13. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be admitted after prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 14. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay, whereas in the instant case the petitioner has filed the case before the trial Court after a lapse of more than one year and it appears that there is negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner. 6 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the revisional Court as well as the trial Court and there is no any ground to set aside the order passed by the Courts below. 16. Accordingly, the instant CrMP is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant