IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1897 of 2009 Satya Narain Singh S/o Late Haridwar Singh R/Ovill. East Rupaspur, P.S.Danapur, Dist. Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Arjun Mistri, R/O Vill. East Ruapaspur, P.S.Danapur, Dist. Patna. --- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner: Mr. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ----------- 04 05.07.2010 Ref I.A.No. 2559 of 2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, state and informant. Petitioner filed the present revision application on 08.12.2009, with defect challenging the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court on 03.06.2008. There appears to be a delay of more than a year in filing the revision application. Petitioner/informant has therefore filed an application (I.A. No. 2559 of 2009), under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. It appears from the impugned judgment that he was duly heard by the learned trial Court. This is what the petitioner has stated in paragraph nos. 3 and 4:- “3.That it is relevant to state here that the petitioner who was looking out the case was suffering from Jaundice and thereafter he was treated by doctor and he was suggested for rest. 4. That as soon as he recovered from his illness. He approached to his advocate at Patna High Court for filing of the instant Criminal revision and thereafter the criminal revision is being filed.” 2 Even if a pedantic view is not taken in the matter, in my view, the explanation submitted by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay is/are grossly inadequate, insufficient and vague. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected, the main revision application is also dismissed as having become time barred. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)