IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 2294 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.01.2011 Ram Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Sunil and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed with an application seeking condonation of delay of 393 days in filing the revision petition. Order impugned herein is dated 13.3.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra thereby acquitting the accused respondents under Section 364, 323, 342, 506, 148, 217, 219 and 221 read with Section 149 IPC and directing the accused to be released on probation on furnishing probation bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount for a period of two years and were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- each to the complainant injured Ram Kumar, i.e. total amount of Rs. 42,000/- . Ground to condone the delay in filing the revision petition is that clerk of the counsel for the petitioner has placed the brief with the file of other client and it was skipped to be noticed. I do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay in Crl. Rev. No. 2294 of 2010 (O&M) 2 filing the revision petition, as such the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Moreover, release of the first time offender on probation for a period of two years seems to be justified providing one opportunity to the first time offender to reform himself instead to sent him to jail in the company of hard core criminals. As a consequence thereof, the revision petition is also dismissed being time barred. (ALOK SINGH) 18.01.2011 JUDGE reena