Criminal Revision No. 346 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 346 of 2008 Date of decision : February 20, 2008 Amarjit Singh Saini .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. This is a revision filed by the complainant against the judgment dated April 21, 2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur acquitting Malkiat Singh vide which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur had reversed the judgment dated May 18, 2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. Along with revision, an application for condonation of delay of 213 days in filing the revision has also been filed by the petitioner. The reason for seeking condonation of delay is that there were three co-accused in the FIR. The appeal filed by the accused in the present case, was somehow segregated and accepted whereas the other appeals are still pending. Petitioner was under the impression that all the appeals are pending, however, one was decided. No reason is forthcoming as to how the petitioner in between came to know about the decision of the present appeal whereas the other appeals are still pending. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that be that as it may, all the appeals are required to be heard together and accordingly, the present case be also remanded back to the Court below for hearing alongwith other appeals. Firstly this Court does not find any justification for condonation of delay of 213 days in filing the present appeal as the ground stated therein does not sound to reason. Even otherwise accused in the present case was charged only under Section 120 B IPC. The allegations of Criminal Revision No. 346 of 2008 -2- **** forgery etc. are against the other two accused. On appreciation of the fact, learned Court below found that accused in the present case cannot be held liable for conspiracy as photocopy of his certificate was used by other accused to get certain benefits. Once that finding has been recorded, I do not find even any substance in the petition on merits. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court would not like to re-appreciate the evidence once the learned Court below has taken a possible view on appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay as well as revision petition are dismissed. February 20, 2008 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge