IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.756 of 2010 1. CHHOTE PRASAD YADAV @ CHHOTE LAL YADAV, S/o Late Budhu Prasad Yadav, 2. Ram Lakhan Yadav, S/o Late Budhu Prasad Yadav 3. Nagina Prasad, S/o Ram Lakhan Yadav 4. Yogendra Prasad, S/o Ram Swaroop Prasad Yadav 5. Anil Prasad, S/o Ram Swaroop Prasad Yadav No. 1 to 5 Resident of village-Karmu Bigha, P.S.-Chhabilapur, District-Nalanda. 6. Naresh Yadav, S/o Late Heera Yadav 7. Ramadhin Yadav, S/o Late Tulsi Yadav. NO. 6 and 7 R/o Village- Khatalpura, P.S.-Chhabilapur, District- Nalanda. 8. Ramashray Prasad Yadav, S/o Late Dasam Yadav. 9. Narsingh Prasad Yadav, S/o Late Dasam Yadav No. 8 and 9 resident of village-Dhanubigha, P.S.- Chhabilapur, District- Nalanda. ……… Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party For the petitioners : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : None ----------- 3 29-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by part of the judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Nalanda, on their appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 59/2/2000-06 whereby the same was allowed in part. Petitioners have filed I.A.No. 1169/10 for condonation of delay in filing the present revision application. It seems from the record that the impugned judgment was passed by the learned lower appellate court on 2 17-11-2006 whereas the present revision application was filed in this court with defects on 18-05-2010. Thus there appears to be delay of more than three years in filing the present application. On perusal of the limitation application, it appears that a ground has been taken by the petitioner that they remained under impression that their appeal in toto has been allowed by the learned lower appellate court. This is what the petitioners have stated in Paragraph-6: “That all the petitioners have got busy and were pursuing their vocation of agriculture etc. but all of a sudden on 22.4.2010 police officer had gone to the village of the petitioners and had arrested Naresh Yadav(petitioner No. 6), Ramadhin Prasad(Petitioner No. 7) and Ramashray Prasad Yadav(petitioner no. 8) and had brought them and produced in court. This has disturbed the other petitioners and on enquiry by them it transpired that their appeal has been dismissed as for their conviction and sentence Under Section 427 I.P.C. was concerned and the same was allowed only in part to the extent of conviction under Section 435 IPC. Immediately thereafter the certified copy of the judgment and order of the lower appellate court was applied for on 27.4.2010 after making necessary enquiry and as per legal advice criminal revision will have to be filed and hence, certified copy of the trial court judgment was also applied for on 27.4.10 which was supplied to the petitioners on 01.05.10 where after they have approached their advocates who after preparing the petition for revision are filing the same and it is humbly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case the delay in filing the criminal revision be condoned.” Stand taken by the petitioners seem to be vague and 3 not convincing. It is found from the impugned judgment that the petitioners herein were duly represented by their counsel. Delay in filing the application, therefore, remain unexplained. The matter was examined on merit. It is found from the record that the petitioners herein were convicted u/s 427 as well as 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and two years respectively. On appeal so preferred by the petitioners, evidence was re-appraised whereafter learned trial court found that evidence(s) so far as charge under section 435 IPC is concerned, was deficient. Resultantly petitioners herein were acquitted of the charge punishable under section 435 IPC. Learned appellate court, however, found that charge punishable under section 427 is proved by cogent and reliable evidence. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel, this court is of the view that there is no patent illegality and/or perversity in the order passed by the learned lower appellate court meriting interference. Since the matter has been considered on merit, the limitation petition (I.A NO. 1169/2010) seeking condonation of delay delves into insignificance. The application is accordingly dismissed. Sujit (Kishore K.Mandal,J.) 4