IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : July 15, 2009 Bhagat Singh ....Petitioner versus Satpal and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 26827 of 2008 This is application for condonation of delay of one year, three months and 24 days in filing the revision petition to challenge the acquittal of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 by the appellate court. All the six respondents were convicted by the trial Magistrate but in appeal conviction of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was upheld whereas respondent nos. 3 to 6 were acquitted. After acquittal, respondent nos. 3 to 6 have filed civil suit for damages for their malicious prosecution by the petitioner. It is alleged in the application that on account of civil suit filed by respondent nos. 3 to 6 claiming damages for their malicious prosecution by the petitioner, it has become imperative for the petitioner to file revision petition against judgment of acquittal. Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2008 (O&M) -2- I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and perused the case file. No ground for condonation of long delay of one year, 3 months and 24 days is made out in the application under disposal. It is pleaded in the application that it has become essential for the petitioner to file the present revision petition because respondent nos. 3 to 6 have filed a suit for damages for their malicious prosecution by the petitioner. However, it is not explained why the petitioner did not challenge the acquittal of respondent no. 3 to 6 within limitation. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner vehemently contended that the applicant-petitioner was under impression that the appellate court had upheld the conviction of respondent nos. 3 to 6 but had ordered their release on probation and only after filing of civil suit by respondent nos. 3 to 6 to claim damages, the petitioner came to know that respondent nos. 3 to 6 had been acquitted by the appellate court. The contention has been noticed simply to be rejected because there is no averment in the application to this effect. On the other hand, the petitioner was represented by counsel before the appellate court and for this reason as well the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. It may also be added that the petitioner has not even mentioned as to when the civil suit was filed by respondent nos. 3 to 6 and when the applicant-petitioner received notice of the said suit. The instant revision petition has been filed only to stall the civil suit filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2008 (O&M) -3- Keeping in view all the circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for condoning the long delay of one year, three months and 24 days in filing the revision petition as there is no explanation whatsoever for the same. The application is accordingly dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 1103 of 2008 Revision petition is accordingly dismissed as time bared. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 15, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'