IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.373 of 2011 Haridwar Pandey Versus The State Of Bihar through Vigilance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna ------------------- 9 20-9-2011 Heard Mr. Haridwar Pandey, Advocate in person and Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the Vigilance. This criminal revision application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by Special Judge, Vigilance-I, Patna whereby petitioner’s application for calling for the original records from the Vigilance Department whose Photostat copies were filed is rejected. Two preliminary objection is raised by the office after filing of this criminal revision application. 1. Revision petition is not maintainable. 2. Revision petition is time barred for which a petition for condonation of delay is filed. Petitioner preferred to continue with the revision petition. Impugned order is passed on 25.8.2010. It is made clear that unexplained delay for a day debars the petitioner for continuing with proceeding and delay for years may be condoned if sufficient ground is shown. 2 In the instant case, the reason for filing of revision petition not in time is knowledge specifying that petitioner could know passing of the order a week earlier to filing of this revision petition. Revision petition is filed on 23.3.2011 while impugned order is passed on 25.8.2010 which is to show that revision petition is filed much after ninety days made available to the petitioner. The Court is always to take liberal view on the point of condonation of delay. Certified copy of order sheet for relevant dates is filed on behalf of petitioner that parties were heard on petitioner’s petition on 18.8.2010 fixing 25.8.2010 for order and that is passed on 25.8.2010. Petitioner may have no knowledge of the order but while petitioner’s prayer was refused, some direction was made by the Court that is production of defence evidence and that has been responded on behalf of this petitioner as Dasti Summons was prayed to issue for a witness U.N.Verma that is allowed. On 3.9.2010 time was sought which was allowed. On 7.9.2010 again time was sought on behalf of petitioner that is allowed, continuously steps are being taken on behalf of petitioner. So it is observed 3 that order dated 25.8.2010 came to the knowledge of petitioner just after its passing and not one week earlier to filing of this case. The Court was taking every initiative to dispose of the case under direction made by this Court as well as by Supreme Court. Petitioner was taking time and then only ultimately filed this revision petition to further delay the proceeding of the court below without sufficiently explaining the delay in filing this revision petition. Finding no ground to condone the delay the same is dismissed and revision petition is also dismissed without making any observation on the point of its maintainability. AI/A.F.R. ( Mandhata Singh, J.)