CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.347 OF 2001 -------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India --------- Jagarnath Paswan @ Jagganath Paswan, son of Late Thakkan Paswan, resident of Village-Garah Barvani, P.S.-Supaul, District- Supaul. -----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bharti Devi, wife of Deb Narayan Choudhary, resident of Village-Thumha, P.S.-Pipra, District-Supaul. ----Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Binit Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-9 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ----------- Shailesh Kr. Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The writ application is for quashing the order dated 20th of June, 2001 passed in Criminal Revision No.58 of 2001(S) by the Sessions Judge, Saharsa, as contained in Annexure 6. The said criminal revision was directed against the order dated 19.1.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in Complaint Case No.52/C/’95, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for discharge was rejected. The petitioner had filed an application for discharge on the ground that the cognizance of the offences in question was taken after the period of limitation as prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid criminal revision application was filed along with a separate application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the revision application. However, the petition for condonation of delay was not properly considered as the court did not take into consideration the delay occasioned in filing the revision application as the petitioner being the Head Clerk of the Certificate Section in the Office of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Supaul deputed to Panchayat election work was not in - 2 - a position to file criminal revision within the limitation period. It is further submitted that a certificate to the above effect of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Supaul was also filed along with the limitation petition. The learned court below, while considering the limitation application, did not take notice of the aforesaid document, which was on the record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it appears that the limitation matter was not properly placed before the court for consideration. 5. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of of the impugned order, it appears that the question of limitation ought to have been considered taking into consideration the documents annexed with the limitation petition explaining the delay. However, it appears that the learned counsel then appearing before the court below could not explain the delay. Notwithstanding the above, in the opinion of the Court the matter needs a fresh consideration on the question of condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid criminal revision application. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20th of June, 2001 passed in Criminal Revision No.58 of 2001 (C), as contained in Annexure 6, is quashed and the matter is remitted to the court below for considering the limitation matter afresh. It will, however, be open for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay in filing the revision application. 7. The writ application, accordingly, stands allowed in part. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) Patna High Court, The 3rd of February, 2011. P.N.M. N.A.F.R.