vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1965 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1965 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1965 OF 2007 R.N. Kumar ... Petitioner V/s. Rajkumar B. Agarwal & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.Kapil Dave for Petitioner Mr.J.A. Udaypuri for Respondent No.1 Ms.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 2, 2008 APRIL 2, 2008 APRIL 2, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order of the Sessions Court refusing to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the revision application. The Sessions Court has held that the delay was not only for 57 days but was of 78 days. It has also concluded that the petitioner had not adduced evidence to show that he was unable to approach the Court within the period of limitation on account of his ailments and because he was residing in Delhi. 2. There is no dispute that after the complaint was filed, process has been issued on 30.10.2006. The summons was served on the petitioner on 17.1.2007. This is the date on which the petitioner first became aware of the pending prosecution. Thereafter, he filed an : 2 : application on 16.4.2007 being a criminal revision application to challenge the issuance of process against him. This revision application was accompanied by an application for condoning the delay in filing the revision. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that in fact there was no delay in filing the revision since the petitioner was served with the summons on 17.1.2007. The petitioner thus obtained knowledge of this prosecution only on 17.1.2007 and not before. The application for condoning the delay has been filed within a period of 90 days which is the period of limitation for filing the revision. The learned advocate submits that the complainant had not taken any steps to ensure that summons was served on the petitioner immediately after the process was issued on 30.10.2006 and therefore the date from which the limitation runs is the date on which the petitioner became aware of the process having been issued. He further submits that assuming the relevant date is 30.10.2006 i.e. the date on which the process was issued which should be taken into consideration, the delay has been explained by the petitioner in his application and the Court must be liberal while construing the application. He placed reliance on the judgment in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v/s. The : 3 : Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & anr., 1961 STPL (LE) 1961 STPL (LE) 1961 STPL (LE) 2059 SC; 2059 SC; 2059 SC; Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. v/s. Mst.Katiji & ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 (1987) 2 SCC 107 (1987) 2 SCC 107 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Basantlal Harinam Ahuja v/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2007 ALL MR (CRI) 1055. 2007 ALL MR (CRI) 1055. 2007 ALL MR (CRI) 1055. 4. The learned advocate for the complainant respondent submits that the limitation for filing a revision starts running from the date of issuance of the process. Assuming the case of the petitioner is accepted that it runs only from the date the summons was served, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay. He submits that the application for condoning the delay has been rejected by the Sessions Court principally for this reason. 5. In the case of Raja Harishchandra Raj Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was concerned as to when the period of limitation would commence. It has observed that where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved, the order must be either actually or constructively communicated to the party. The Supreme Court has held that the date of communication of the order is what is material and not : 4 : the date of passing of the order. In view of this judgment and the fact that the order of issuance of process was communicated to the petitioner only on 17.1.2007 when summons was served, there was in fact no delay in filing the revision and therefore, the Sessions Court has erred in rejecting the application and consequently the revision application. 6. Even on merits, as held by both the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. (supra) and this Court in Basantlal Hariram Ahuja (supra), a liberal approach must be adopted while considering an application for condoning the delay. It is not necessary for the applicant to explain each day’s delay or each hour’s delay but there must be sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. In my view, the Sessions Court has erred in refusing to condone the delay for the reasons stated in the application despite the fact that there was no delay. 7. In the circumstances, Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The revision application shall be heard on merits.