KISHORI LAL Versus STATE OF HP CRMPM-698 of 2026 07.08.2026 Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. CRMPM-698 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/ petitioner for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is barred by limitation. Though, by way of filing reply to the application, prayer made on behalf of the applicant/petitioner has been opposed by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, on the ground that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua inordinate delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition, however, having carefully perused the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that applicant/petitioner, on account of financial constraints, coupled with the fact that applicant/ petitioner, after his being convicted by the competent Court of law, was behind bars, was unable to engage the lawyer to file accompanying criminal revision petition. Once prayer of the applicant/petitioner for appointment of Legal Aid Counsel to file criminal revision petition came to be allowed, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings. Since liberty of the applicant/petitioner is curtailed on account of judgement of conviction and order of sentence awarded against him, coupled with the fact that he has a right to file criminal revision petition against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by the court below, this Court is of the view that no prejudice otherwise shall be caused to the prosecution in case the accompanying criminal revision petition, having been filed by applicants, is heard and decided on merits. Hence, this Court is satisfied that delay in maintaining the criminal revision petition is neither intentional nor willful, but owing to circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner, and as such, the same deserves to be condoned. In view of above, delay, which has been otherwise sufficiently explained is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr.MP No. ________ of 2026 (CrMPST1424 of 2026) Be registered. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner fairly states that this Court, instead of deciding the application for suspension of sentence, may decide the criminal revision petition. In view of the above, present application is disposed of at this stage. Cr. Revision No.__________ of 2026 (Cr.RST1723/2026) Be registered. List on 15.09.2026 for hearing. In the meanwhile, record of the learned Court below be called for. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 07, 2026 (Sunil)