CRR No.1386 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1386 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 17, 2011 Malkiat Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Jarnail Singh and others. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 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? Present: Mr.Harinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. ALOK SINGH, J. Revisionist – petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdcition assailing judgment dated 04.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the accused-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were acquitted of the charges. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 14.09.1997, all the accused-respondents came to the plot belonging to the Village Panchayat and started erecting a wall over there to which the complainant – revisionist objected it. On account of this, the accused-respondents caused injuries to the complainant and on her raising hue and cry, all the accused-respondents ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The revisionist-complainant was taken to the Hospital. CRR No.1386 of 2010 2 On the basis of the statement of the complainant-revisionist, a case was registered against the accused-respondents. During the course of the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and accused were arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused-respondents. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as five witnesses and closed the evidence. Thereafter, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled against them. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on the record, convicted respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 323/326/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 148 IPC; RI for nine months under Section 326 IPC; RI for two months under Section 323/149 IPC. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the accused-respondents preferred an appeal which was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside and the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges. Against the acquittal of the accused-respondents, the revisionist-complainant has preferred the present revision petition. Along with the present petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1566 days in filing the present revision petition was also filed. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. Admittedly, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court was passed on 04.10.2005 and the present petition was filed by the revisionist along with an application for condonation of CRR No.1386 of 2010 3 delay in the year 2010. It is a well settled principle of law that each day's delay has to be explained by the petitioner. Surprisingly, the present petition has been filed after inordinate delay of 1566 days. It appears that the petitioner has not taken any effective step to file the present petition at the earliest possible and treated the present petition in a very casual manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any reasonable cause for condonation of delay. Even otherwise on merits also, after going through the record, I find that the learned Lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on the record and has rightly came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to prove the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity either in the procedure or in assessing the prosecution evidence. As such, there is no justification for this Court to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court ordinarily should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach the finding different from the learned Lower Appellate Court. In the absence of any manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted. As the petitioner has failed to show any reasonable or sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. As a consequence therefore, the present petition is dismissed being time-barred, as well as, on merits. March 17, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge