CR.M-P.NO. 383/2008 sais = i.3,^,-,"-.i,=. x^.. -^ TS Q^--^^^.-.^ .? iSia - nuu t>ic ivix. a.»S'«>55A)i3AJuiaei» ui. APPUCANT Versus 1. 2. Pratap Singh nhaliwal, S/o. Stiri Baliadur Siu-gh Db-al^al, aged a.botit 57 vears, Occupation Goverttment Service, I loiue Departinent Dhar MP Rajendra Singh CTT-adrlha, S/o. I^ate Shri Gurudilya Singh Chaddha, aged about 70 vears. r/o. Naaak Niwas. Dhaiuiapura Road, Jagdalpur (CG) State of CTiTiattisgarTl, TlirongTi nistrict. Magistrate Jagdalpur Bastar, District Bastar (CG1 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THB CR.P.C. Shii Saurabu Dangi, counsel for uie pcutiouer. OR&L ORDBR ("asscd on 7th August, 2008) Ttiis petition is directed against tTie order dated 17.6.2008 pased hv t1ie leaiTied Sessions Jiidgc, Jagdalmir- Distt. Bsstar in Cr.Rev. No. fnnreaisst.ered) 0/08 pn-fered against ttie orderdatcd 7.3.2008 in Cr.Caae No. 278/2008 nassed bv Clifef Jiinicial MagistratR, iJagdalpiir wiien'bv leamed CTlief Jlidicial Magistrate bas teken cogmzance for fhc. offe.nce piinisTial-ile iinder Section 506 of the IPC against. the petitioner and issiied process. 2. I.eamed Sessions .Iiidgc 1ias disnnssed the evidence on tTie sole grminri t.hat t1ie revision tias been nreferred after 7 davs ofits limitation. Tt 1ias heert snp.cifically alleged t'hat. on 7.3.2008; presRTlt pctitioner was not. party and when TIR came t.o know ahmit tTie said order, Tie appiied fbr t.he copy and thereaft.er filer) t.he pe.tition wtiich •was wit.'hirs liinitatioTi i.e. on 28.3.2008. 3. OrdenTnTiusned nenised. 4. I^camcd Sessions Jildge Tias dismissed t.he petition o-nlv on tTie groiind that the revismn Tias liecn fiierl after seven days oftlie periorl of limitation. TTie petitionfir Tias categorically explainterl t.hat how and wTicn Tie came to know aboiit the orrler dated 7.3.2008. AdmittRdlv, on fhe riate of taking cognizance aTiri issiiance of process, e applicant ^was not present and process has been isssiied by t.he Coiirt to the applicant. The-. apnlicant. 'had nreferred the revision before leamed Sessions Jiidge. Jsgdalnnr wtt.hin the period of liTnitation from t.he date oflcnowledec. a 5. T'he revisional Coilrt has not. considered tTiis asTicct oftTie case snd clismisscri the revision on tT<e groiind of limitation. The revisiorsal Coiirt oiigTit t.o Yiavf not disinisssed tTiis revisioTi on the groiiTld of limitetion becaiise sfsme Tias T)een nrefcrred ^vithin Kmitation from the date of tenowledge w'hidi is applicable in t.his case. 6. Onler is not 5>iistainabte and it SRciires t1ie ends of iiisticc. The petition is lishle to bc set aside and tTie petitioner is directed to appear before the revisional Coilrt to proseciite this applicant in accordance with }aw on 29th Sentember 2008. Sd/- T. P. Sbarma Judge „/ i-l^