Crl. Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.09.2010 Raj Kumar ....Petitioner versus Chander Khurana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 48519 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. 48521 of 2010 Heard. There is a delay of 140 days in filing the petition. Heard, for the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by affidavit, the delay of 140 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned under the present set of circumstances. The crl. misc. application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl. Rev. No. 2527 of 2010 At the very outset learned counsel for petitioner did not press the present revision petition on merits challenging the impugned order. However, he has contended with some amount of vehemence that the Additional Sessions Crl. Revision No. 2527 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Judge, Kurukshetra (Revisional Court) was not justified in imposing a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record, with his help, to my mind, this contention has considerably force. As there was no material before the Revisional Court to impose the cost of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner, therefore, the order imposing the cost of Rs.5,000/- is hereby set aside and the impugned order is accordingly modified to that extent. 3. Disposed of accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge September 15, 2010 naresh.k