IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16892 of 2008 1. M/S SPECTRUM BUSINESS SUPPORT LTD. 2. SHRI D.B.MODAK @ SUNIL MODAK, MD, M/S SPECTRUM BUSINESS SUPPORT LTD., BOTH AT 309, SHAH AND NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OFF DR. E. MOSES ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI. BOTH THROUGH THEIR CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY SHRI KUMAR KISLAYA PANKAJ, 236, ANSAL CHAMBER II, 6, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, N.DELHI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA S/O DR.D.K.SINHA, RESIDENT OF JAYANTI KUNJ, ROAD NO.3, SALIMPUR AHRA, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. S.K.Mohanty with M.P.Sinha For the Opp.party:- Mr. Sidharth Prasad. ----------- 7 27.04.2010. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2008, passed by the Revision court condoning the delay of 648 days in filing the criminal Revision against order dated 19.9.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna in Complaint case no. 1151C/2005, by which he dismissed the complaint for non prosecution. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under section 418 of the I.P.C. and directed complainant to file requisites. The complainant did not file process for long. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. Against dismissal, the complainant went in revision. The revision was preferred after delay of 648 days bearing Cr. Rev. 656 of 2007. The Revisional court vide order dated 17.1.2008 condoned the delay, admitted the Revision and transferred it to the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No. III, Patna for disposal. The petitioners submit that delay could not have been condoned without noticing opposite party. In support of his - 2 - contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Apex court decisions rendered in cases of (1) State of Maharastra Vs. Sharad Chandra Vinayak Dongre and ors, reported in (1995)1 SCC 42, (2) P.K.Chaudhary Vs. Commander, 48, BRTF (GREF), reported in 2008 AIR SC 1937, (3) Prashant Goel Vs. State and others, reported in 2007(1) Crimes 78 and (4) Jasma Rai Vs. Smt Sonemaya Rai and anr, reported in 1980 Cri L.J. 500. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law that the revisional court ought to have noticed the other side before condoning such long delay. Mr. Sidharth Prasad appearing for opposite party submits that there is still chance of conciliation between the parties. In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex court that delay in filing revision should be condoned only after noticing the other side, I set aside the impugned order dated 17.1.2008, passed by the Revisional court in Cr. Rev. No. 656 of 2007 and remit the matter to the court concerned for proceeding further in accordance with law. It goes without saying that parties would be at liberty to reconciliate the matter. In case, any such application is filed, the same may be considered. The instant petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)