2026:HHC:5310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 98 of 2026 Reserved on: 25.2.2026 Date of Decision: 03.03.2026. Rajesh Chauhan ...Applicant/Petitioner Versus M/s Mount Kailash Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. ...Non-Applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant/Petitioner : Mr Vinod Kumar, Advocate. For the Non-applicant/Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Cr. MP No. 569 of 2026 The present application has been $led for taking on record the copy of the death certi$cate pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.1.2026. It has been asserted that the revision is barred by 03 years, 09 months and 15 days. The delay occurred because of unavoidable circumstances. Mr Yashwant, Advocate, who was representing the petitioner before the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:5310 Appellate Court has died, and this fact has to be brought on record. Hence, the application. 2. Since the present application has been $led to support the plea taken by the petitioner; therefore, the document is necessary and is taken on record. 3. Application stands disposed of. Cr.MP(M) No. 98 of 2026 4. The applicant/petitioner has $led the present application for condonation of 1292 days’ delay in $ling the revision. It has been asserted that the applicant had already paid the amount, along with compensation to the respondent/complainant. He remained under the impression that the case had been withdrawn by the respondent/complainant. He was surprised when he heard about the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest. He inquired about the matter and found that the case was not withdrawn. The delay in $ling the revision was not intentional. Hence the application. 5. I have heard Mr Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, who has submitted that the learned counsel representing the applicant/petitioner had died during the 3 2026:HHC:5310 pendency of the proceedings before the learned Appellate Court. The applicant/petitioner paid the amount to the respondent/complainant and remained under the impression that he (the complainant) would withdraw the complaint; however, he failed to do so. The applicant/petitioner became aware of the pendency of the proceedings when the Court issued non-bailable arrest warrants. The applicant/petitioner had su;cient cause for not $ling the revision within the limitation. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in $ling the revision be condoned. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The certi$ed copy of the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, shows that the appeal was dismissed on 4.4.2022. The death certi$cate shows that Sh. Yashwant had died on 7.9.2025. Therefore, the death of learned counsel was much after the decision of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, and the plea that the applicant/petitioner could not know about the decision of the case because of the death of the learned counsel is not acceptable. 4 2026:HHC:5310 8. The applicant/petitioner asserted that he had paid the money to the respondent/complainant and remained under the impression that the matter would be withdrawn by the respondent/complainant. This plea is not acceptable. Any person paying the money to the other side and knowing about the pendency of the matter before the Court would have informed his counsel or the Court about the payment. There is nothing on record to show that the learned counsel or the Court was informed about any payment. Further, the order passed by the learned Trial Court was speci$c that the applicant/petitioner was to serve simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of ₹26,000/-; therefore, the payment of the money to the complainant would not have wiped out the order of sentence of six months. Thus, the plea that the applicant/petitioner had paid the money to the respondent/complainant and remained under the impression that the matter had been settled will not help him. 9. The delay is huge, and there is no explanation for it; therefore, the application cannot be allowed, and it is dismissed. 5 2026:HHC:5310 Criminal Revision (ST) No. 549 of 2026 10. Since the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed, therefore, the present revision is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 3rd March, 2026 (Chander)