Dr Lawrence W.J. Peris vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Cr.MP(M) No. 423 of 2026 Reserved on 20.07.2026 24.07.2026 Present: Mr Vinay Kuthaiala, Senior Advocate with M/s Diwan Singh and Devi Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/CBI. The applicant/petitioner has filed the present application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant/petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI Shimla (learned Trial Court) in Corruption Case No. 8-S/7 of 2022 vide which an application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for discharge filed by the applicant/petitioner was dismissed. There is a delay of 440 days in filing the revision. The applicant/petitioner was taking care of his ailing mother, who is aged 102 years. She is suffering from various diseases and the applicant/petitioner was not in a position to study the order and discuss the matter with his lawyer. The applicant's wife, Jyoti Peris, who is also one of the co- accused, filed a criminal revision before this Court. The learned Trial Court did not proceed further with the matter after filing the revision. The position of the applicant/petitioner is similar to that of Smt. Jyoti Peris because both of them were the sleeping directors of M/s Resource Foods Pvt. Ltd and had no role in the criminal conspiracy. The applicant/petitioner chose to wait for the outcome of the decision in the petition filed by his wife. This Court allowed the revision filed by the applicant/petitioner on 31.10.2025. The applicant decided to file a revision before this Court. The registry raised an objection that the revision was delayed in time and the certified copy of the order was not annexed to the petition. The applicant applied for the certified copy, and the Court closed for the winter vacation. The delay in filing the revision was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control. The applicant/petitioner is similarly situated as his wife Smt. Jyoti Peris, who was discharged by this Court. Similarly situated persons have also not been charge-sheeted by the CBI. Hence, the application. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply reproducing the brief facts of the case and making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and the sufficient cause. It was asserted that there is a delay of 440 days in filing the revision. The applicant is supposed to explain each day's delay. The applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has not filed any supporting documents to show the illness of his mother. The applicant waited for the decision of the revision petition filed by his wife. His conduct disentitles him from the condonation of the delay. Registry was open even during the vacation, and the applicant could have filed the revision during the vacations. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. The applicant also filed the supporting documents regarding the treatment of his mother. 4. I have heard Mr Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel assisted by M/s Diwan Singh and Devi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/CBI. 5. Mr Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/petitioner submitted that the petitioner/applicant could not file the revision earlier because his mother was ill and he was taking care of her. His wife filed a petition before this Court, and the applicant waited for the outcome of the decision of the petition filed by his wife. The delay was not intentional but due to the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. The applicant has a very good case in his favour, and his revision is likely to succeed in all eventualities. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the revision be condoned. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission: - (i) Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs vs. Union of India and another (2023) 10 SCC 531; (ii) Abdul Ghafoor & Anr vs. State of Bihar AIR 2012 SC 640; (iii) Inder Singh vs. State SLP 6145/24 decided on 2.03.2025; and (iv) Sushant Kumar Dalei vs. State of Orisa SLP (Cr.) 9445/2023 decided on 18.05.2026. 6. Mr Janesh Mahajan, learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/CBI submitted that the applicant was a fence sitter who waited for the outcome of the decision of the revision petition filed by his wife. Such conduct is not bona fide. The merits of the case are not to be considered while deciding an application for condonation of the delay, and the delay cannot be condoned merely because the applicant has a good case on merits. He relied upon the judgment in Basawaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 in support of his submission. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The applicant/petitioner has filed a copy of the certificate issued by Dr Dominic Misquith, DCH, MD (Community Health), MSc. (London), who has certified that Mrs Dorothy Peris is 102 years old. She had been under general care and medical advice for 20 years. She developed dementia and vasovagal syncope, which has resulted in frequent fainting episodes caused by a dropping heart rate and blood pressure. Therefore, the presence of a family member was recommended to supervise and assist the caregiver on a day-to-day basis. This certificate was issued on 29.05.2026. Nothing has been brought on record to show that this certificate is false or that the applicant's mother is not suffering from the symptoms mentioned in the certificate. The Medical Officer had specifically stated that a family member is required to assist the caregiver. Therefore, the applicant was engaged in taking care of his mother, and he had a sufficient cause not to file the petition before the Court. 9. It was submitted that the applicant was a fence sitter because he waited for the outcome of the petition filed by his wife. His conduct does not entitle him to the condonation of the delay. This submission will not help the respondent. It has already been found out above that the plea taken by the applicant that his mother remained ill and required constant care and attention is duly corroborated by the certificate issued by the Medical Officer. Therefore, his plea that he was taking care of his mother is acceptable. Even if he was waiting for the outcome of the decision of the petition filed by his wife, that does not take away the effect of the illness of his mother. Hence, the application cannot be dismissed because of the averment that he was waiting for the outcome of the revision petition filed by his wife. 10. The judgment cited on the bar deals with the question whether the merits of the case are to be seen while condoning the delay or not, which does not arise for adjudication because of the proof of sufficient cause by the applicant. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss the judgments cited at the bar. 11. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the delay in filing the revision is ordered to be condoned. 12. The present application stands disposed of. Cr.R(ST) No. 12052 of 2025 13. Vide separate order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 423 of 2026, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned; it be registered. 14. The copy of the revision petition be supplied to the learned Special Public Prosecutor within a week, and the matter be listed for consideration. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 24th July, 2026 (Nikita)