IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.166 of 2011 SUHANT KUMAR @ SURENDRA YADAV @ CHHOTELAL YADAV …PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 03. 24.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application. There appears to be delay of more than three years in filing the same. The petitioner was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul in G.R.Case No. 309/98 and on a consideration of materials brought on record he was held guilty under section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years besides imposition of fine having default clause. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he completed the period of sentence and thereafter the appeal was filed which was considered and dismissed on merit. It is the stand of the petitioner that no body had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the appellate court. The petitioner has stated in pagraphs 3 and 4 of the present interlocutory application as under: “That it is stated and submitted that Criminal Appeal No.4/2001(S) was dismissed on merit vide order dated 15.12.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.6, Saharsa. His learned counsel at Saharsa did not appear on the day of hearing of present appeal, nor informed him about dismissal of appeal on merit. Petitioner 2 was under impression that his appeal is pending for hearing and its turn for hearing has not come. That recently he learnt about dismissal of appeal on merit, instructed advocate clerk in learned court below at Saharsa to obtain certified copy of the appellate conviction order dated 15.12.2006. Advocate clerk obtained the certified copy of order on 24.11.2010 then he came to Patna and handed over his file to learned advocate of this Hon’ble Court. The learned counsel of this Hon’ble Court instructed him to obtain certified copy of conviction order dated 15.5.2001 passed in G.R. Case No. 309/98 passed by learned trial court, Supaul. He obtained certified copy of this order on 15.12.2010 and thereafter he handed over the said order to the learned Advocate. Thereafter the present application was drafted and is being filed. This has led delay in filing the present criminal revision application.” Even if a lenient view is taken, in my view, explanations submitted therein are thoroughly vague and evasive. No case for condonation of delay is made out. Accordingly, the application is rejected. Since I have rejected the application seeking condonation of delay, the main revision application is also dismissed having become incompetent. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )