HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPU Cr.M.P. No.83 of 2007 . APPLICANT Raju @ Rajnarayan Sahu s/o Late, Shri Sunderlal Sahu, aged about 4O years, r/ 0' Nehru Chowk, ‘ Balodabazar, Distt. RaipfJr (C.G) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) y ECriminal Revisions uls 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ‘3 RESPONDENT Appearance: Shri Prakash Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on advance copy. Sunil Kumar Sinha, J, Heard on admission. (E1) ~ (2) This petition has been directed against the order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the 2nd Addl. Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, in Criminal Revision No.373/2006 whereby the said Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.7.2006 passed in Criminal Case No.11/2006 of the file of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Baloda Bazar, pending u/ s 1 10 Cr.P.C. (3) The contents of the impugned order would show that the revision was dismissed at the preliminary stage after dismissing an application filed u/ s 5 of the Limitation‘Act. (4) barred and for condonat-ion of delay in filing the saidrevision, the petitioner had tiled an application u/ s 5 of the Limitation Act. ORAL ORDER (18.720071 It appears that the aforesaid criminal revision was time R 2 Cr.M.P. 83/07 )4 (5) It was simply contended by the petitioner that the preliminary order dated 05.7.2006 was received by the petitioner on 31.10.2006, therefore, the starting point of Limitation shall be 31.10.2006 and if the Limitation is calculated from the said date, it :would be well Within time, hence there was no delay. The revisional lCourt took the View that the preliminary order dated 5.7.2006 (the Eorder under challenge in revision) was passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the summon was also directed to be issued {and a date of 26.7.2006 was fixed. On 26.7.2006 the petitioner caused his appearance in the Court of Magistrate. The Magistrate was on leave and the next date was given as 08.8.2006. g ,Thereafter, the petitioner had also appeared on 8.8.2006 and had filed his reply on merits. Observing all this, the revisional Court has held that the petitioner was having knowledge about the passing of the said order since his first date of appearance before the Court i.e., 26.7.2006 and thereafter 8.8.2006 and if the period of limitation is calculated from these dates, the revision which was filed on 22.11.2006 shall be barred by limitation for which no satisfactory cause was shown by the petitioner (6) I have gone through the contents of the impugned order as also the dates given in it. After going through the contents of the said order and further considering the aforesaid dates etc., I am of the opinion that, in fact, the petitioner was having knowledge of I this order since 26.7.2006 when he firstly made his appearance before the SDM, and the limitation shall begin to run from the said date and if the condonation was sought by him, he would have given adequate reasons for condoning the delay occurred after L,. .