IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.953 of 2010 KAUSHAL KUMAR, S/o Sri Madusudan Prasad, R/o Village- Pakraura, P.S.-Noorsarai, District- Nalanda. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ranjeet Paswan @ Bukaniya 3. Bhushan Gope 4. Sugamber Paswan 5. Binda Raut 6. Munna Raut 7. Sharwan Paswan 8. Kamlesh Paswan 9. Suresh Paswan 10. Sudhir Paswan 11. Kallu RAut 12. Jitendra Paswan @ Rudra ……… Opposite Parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mathura Nand Jha, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 15-07-2010 I.A. No. 1315 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is the informant of the case, which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 340/99 (T.R. No. 193/2007) of the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.-1, Biharsharif, in which the opposite parties herein were tried and acquitted from all the charges. He is, therefore, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, which was recorded on 5.02.2009. Present criminal revision application has been filed in this court on 6.7.2010 with defect. An interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act being I.A. No. 1315 of 2010 has therefore, been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application. Heard. 2 It appears that delay involved is more than one year and two months. Petitioner has stated in paragraph-3 of the interlocutory application is as under: Paragraph 3 : That the petitioner has moved before this Hon’ble after expiry of the aforesaid period of limitation due because he was suffering from T.B. for the period of 1.1.2009 to 4.10.2010 and he was advised to take bed rest. Thus, due to his illness he could not file the instant case which is evident from the certificate issued by his doctor. A true/photocopy of the certificate dated 5.4.2010 is made ANNEXURE-A herewith.” In support of the aforesaid statement, he has enclosed a certificate of the doctor (Annexure-8). There is no other supporting material placed on record in order to convince that petitioner was really suffering from Tuberculosis. On perusal of the certificate (Annexure-8), it appears that petitioner got a certificate only with a view to file the same along with limitation application. On a consideration of the statement made therein and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is not satisfied that he was prevented by sufficient/adequate reasons from filing the application within time. The application seeking condonation of delay is, therefore, rejected. Since, the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected; the criminal revision application being Cr. Rev. No. 953 of 2010 is also rejected as barred by limitation. Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal,J)