1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 182 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.9.2009 *** Babu Ram .. Petitioner Vs. Haryana State .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner has concurrently held guilty for the an offence under Section 323 IPC and has been released on probation of good conduct on certain conditions. By way of instant revision, the petitioner is challenging the judgments of his conviction rendered by the Courts below. Along with the instant revision, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay of 589 days in filing the appeal on the ground that since the counsel for the petitioner had not informed about the dismissal of his appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, hence the aforesaid delay occurred. But in the considered opinion of this Court, the explanation submitted is not acceptable. Since it was the appeal of the petitioner, therefore, it is his duty to stay in touch with his counsel about the decision rendered thereupon. It is not acceptable that for such a long period of more than a year, the petitioner had not contacted his lawyer to know the fate of his appeal. Hence, no good ground is made out condone such a colossal delay. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the judgments rendered by the Courts below, it is crystal clear that on the strength of testimonies of injured Ram Nath (PW2) and that of eye witness Shiv Dayal (PW3) coupled with the statement of Dr. Sanjiv (PW4), the petitioner has been held guilty for an offence under Section 323 IPC alone 2 and given benefit for an offence under Section 325 IPC due to non- examination of medical expert as to the nature of injuries/ fracture suffered by the injured. The Courts below after analyzing the whole material has rendered the impugned judgments, which call for no interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the instant revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 1,2009 Jiten