fiss; )088231 ••^:'y-' '..^z' '"•i"-' • IN THE HIGH COURT OF .TUBIG&TBRS M&DHY& PRADESH AT iTABAtPl® K.'Ai'1"' CRIMIN&L REVISIOS N0. OF 2000 ikil-'o;;:lTco^tti:'°AC'.s- ^&vaav~ /' APPLICANT „,(, i -,CT"3'} ./ ^w'" SincAe 6e"c" ^ • Gourisbankar Agrawal, Aged about years, Soa ef ShcL Wathuram Agrawal , Resident @f Baradwar. TahsU; Sakti, District Janjgir-Cfaanpa (H.P.) ?E R S U -b0' .,>' / ^^: / •^—{- ' N0N-APPI.ICANT $. Tlae State of Madbya Pradesh, CRIMINAIi REVISION UHDER SECTIONS 397/401 OF THS CODE OF CRIMINAI, PROCSDURE, 1973. -a. . - . a—^a. 'SKST^^SSZSS.'SiSS: ^-HC-22 ~3^ '-wwf, ^aTwrg, 'tsR;inN< r^-) Cr. Rev. Ho ^' #iis<r qii •R^iwsnt?] STTTRT'^!^T 3:[R?r'?«nwHtt^ 3/4/2001 ShrJ. Prasbant Hishra ^Wk'14'H iTPraf'? fe^t Tfsre.TC Taif:OTsn^T earned counsel for ttc petitlonero -Shri Ranvlf Singh, lea^-ned S.A. for the State. Heard. From the ordsr passed ^iy tba Sessions Judge on 23/3/2000 it appears that tljie appeal filed by the appli<Sant was dismls sed a s barred by Learned couasel for tbs pass-i.ng of the order by tbe •Lj.mJ.tation. 4 applicant submits that after Competent Authority/Collector ^U^s-vrjJ^ the aooellant filed the jsdvltB&dn before the same authority, therefore. the appeal could The fact tbat the revii ^^ \r-^ru-Sjfl^S~ Authorlty was^&dlaaaifcfced- to not be filed in 1-i.mitat-Lon. fcw wa.s filed before tte Competent t.he notice of the Sessions Judge. Even otherw-i.se, if the revi^w petitionwas pending. tbs sams did aot have tte effec absence of any application filing the appe'al, .tt carinq ^ of stopping the 1-unitation. In beek.u'g eondonatlon of delay in fc be contended that thi learned Appel.la te Court was anjustjjfled In d.tsralsslr^ the appeal. I find no rsason to j]nterfere. The petitlon 1s dismlssed. -Sd7-- R.S. Garg Judge