1 2025:CGHC:58567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1447 of 2025 1 - Avinash Nishad S/o G.R. Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Housing Board Colony, House No. Hig-9, Deorikhurd Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Pappu Shrivas S/o Rajkumar Shrivas Aged About 32 Years R/o Magarpara, Near Marimai Mandir, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 03/12/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, an application for condonation of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicants have filed the instant criminal revision before this Hon’ble Court 2 for quashment of the charges dated 07.09.2021 framed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur in Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 60/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 which is barred by limitation of 1408 days. The applicants were in jail and his family members were facing financial hardship. They arranged amount and got certified copy of the impugned order; thereafter they contacted the counsel for filing the appeal. Therefore, there is delay in filing the criminal appeal. The delay caused by the applicants is bonafide and liable to be condoned. He therefore prays to allow the I.A. No. 01/2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.— Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the 3 High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 5. The applicants have filed the present criminal revision against the impugned order dated 07.09.2021 challenging the charges framed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur in Special Sessions Case (NDPS) No. 60/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The impugned order framing charges against the applicants were passed on 07.09.2021 and the applicants have approached this Court after lapse of around 4 years. 6. It appears that there is negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the applicants as such the present criminal revision is barred by delay and latches and is not liable to be maintained. 7. In view of the above, the present Criminal revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima