IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1383 of 2010
1. ABDUL GHAFOOR
2. SAKEENA KHATOON
...PETITIONERS
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
...OPPOSITE PARTY
For the petitioner :Mr. Vikramdeo Singh
For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP
-----------
03. 27.09.2010 This application has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 9.02.2008, passed in Cr. Appeal
No.05/20 of 2005 (Abdul Ghafoor & Anr. Vs. State), whereby
learned appellate court on a consideration of materials on record
concurred with the finding of guilt recorded by learned trial court
under sections 323, 447 and 452 IPC. They were, however,
acquitted of the charges punishable under section 379 IPC.
Present revision application has been filed after
inordinate delay. It appears that the application is barred by delay
of more than 15 months.
Learned counsel for the petitioners presses I. A.
No.1888 filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7
petitioners have tried to explain the delay. The female inmate of
the house (petitioner no.2) is also said to have gone to Delhi. In
paragraph 7, it is stated that petitioner no.1 on his return home
was arrested and could know about the disposal of the appeal. The
appeal was considered and disposed of in presence of the counsel
for the appellants.
From the pleadings made in the application seeking
2
condonation of delay, this Court is not satisfied that a case for
condonation of delay has been made out. Accordingly, the same is
rejected.
Since I have already rejected the application seeking
condonation of delay, the present criminal revision application is
also dismissed as barred by limitation.
( Kishore K. Mandal )
hr