$ingle semi! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P. No. SQH‘ OF 2011 PETITION UNDER SECTION 48§70F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Tll PETITIONER Roop Chand, ACCUSED S/o. Birdi Chand Parakh, aged about 45 years, occupation Businessman, R/ o. Village Sambalpur, Police Station Bhanupratappur, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) i V E R S U S NON—APPLICANT Jain Cycle Store, COMPLAINANT Through : Proprietor Gautam Chand Jain, S/o. Sultanmal Jain, aged about 49 years, R/o. Dalli—Rajhara, Police Station Dani—Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) WWW mmm Wmefwm Wmm . $afa‘qa11éw 5E : Hon‘bie $hri Manindra M0? an $hrivastava‘ Jx %2=‘-7-=?M‘5 $hri Ramesh KumarSham a, counsei for the petitioner. Heard on admission. This peft§iion has been filPd by ‘ihe petitioner aggrieved by order daied 1'6I'08/‘2011‘ by which 'the apwicati‘an for condonation o?“ deiay filed in support 0f the revisiO'ri petition has been dismissTed by the Court. Learned counsei foa' the peiitioner submiis ihat as i‘ne grounds raised by the - etitioner byway of revision petition were substantive and reiated to the iurisdiction e s submits that in the mai‘ier of adopted a iiberai approach wher as rhe Couri beiow has reiec‘red’ “the appiicaiion whhout army echsiderarion and rongiy recorded ihat no reaeons have been assigned for suph deiay. The aphiieation for condo aiion of deiay has been rejected vicie impugned order by recording ihai no reas n for deiay has been assigned. i have gone through the apeiication for cond nation of deiay fiieoi by the petittoner before the C‘ourt beiow. in that appiioationi .o cause, whatsoever, has been stated. he oniy . ground rai$ed in the appiica‘ii . pect, ' . iherefore, e. the .. uoun - . . below - Y ought - . :0 . . have comoned . ’ . the . aeiay. . . . He . Tunher - n ndona‘tié:i“of"deiey: the Court ought i0 have T ie that as the order passed on ’i5/‘t2r‘1‘6 is in excess of jurisdiction, therefore, eiay be condoned. True t is that a iiberai ep roach is required in consideration of appiication for oono‘onation of delay. At the same time. the appiicant is reoruireoi to state the cause for deiay. in the absence f any reason whatsoever stated in the aopiicetion for condonatton of deiay. rejecton of petitioner’s appiication for condonation of deiay cannot be said to be iiiega or in excess of jurisdiction. Learned counsei for the petitioner has retied upon Tn deeision in the case of $tete INUT of Beihii u. 3/140—2/201 1—1 ,so,o00. o V r (£9