IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.108 of 2008. State of Rajasthan VERSUS Dr. Kailash Yadav, Medical Officer, Bapcha, Baran Date Of Order ::: 29/01/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mrs. Sadhana Bhatt, Public Prosecutor for the State. By the Court :: Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing the revision petition. The revision petition was filed before this Court on 28.09.2001 challenging the impugned order dated 14.05.2001. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 23.01.2008, which consists of following four paragraphs :- 1. THAT the afore-mentioned revision petition was filed on 29.08.2001. 2. THAT the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed before the Hon'ble Court on 15.10.2001, but it could not come on record and the Hon'ble Court had granted one week's time to remove defect on 27.07.2007. Again the case was listed on 11.01.2008 and Hon'ble Court has granted one week's time to remove the defeat of limitation. 3. THAT the delay cause in filing appeal is a bonafide, it is not an intentional and due to official procedure, delay is caused. 4. THAT in the interest of justice, delay may kindly be condoned. The above contents of the application show that no reason of whatsoever nature has been given for condonation of delay and it has been mentioned that the delay is bonafide, which may be condoned. I am not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Apart from above, I also examined the merits of the case and I find that the accused-non-petitioner was discharged by the trial Court from the offence under Section 201, I.P.C., way back on 14.05.2001. The trial Court has considered the facts of the case in detailed and has recorded a finding that no charge, prima-facie is made out against the present accused-non-petitioner and consequently, discharged him. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the application as well as revision petition and both are accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/ I.No.2