IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.L.A. No. 6 of 2010 MOTI LAL SINGH, S/O LTE RAGHUPATI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONAPIPAR, P.S. PACHRUKHI, DISTRICT SIWAN .. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GAURI SHANKAR SINGH, S/O KESHWAR SINGH 3. RAMAKANT SINGH, S/O KESWHAR SINGH 4. VINDESHWARI SINGH, S/O GAURI SHANKAR SINGH 5. BIRENDRA SINGH, S/O GAURI SHANKAR SINGH 6. UMESH SINGH, S/O GAURI SHANKAR SINGH 7. KEDAR SINGH, S/O LAL KISHUN SINGH 8. PARMANAND SINGH, S/O HEERA LAL SINGH 9. RAJDEO SINGH, S/O HEERA LAL SINGH 10. RAMAND SINGH, S/O MUNILAL SINGH 11. AJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O KEDAR SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SONAPIPAR, P.S. PACHRUKHI, DISTRICT SIWAN .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /5/ 26.03.2010 Heard the counsel for the appellant on the point of limitation. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal, dated 08.09.2009, passed by Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. 1064 of 1999/Trial No. 253 of 2009 by which he acquitted the accused persons for offences under Sections 144, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused persons armed with lathi, bhala, kudal came at about 2 09.00 a.m. and dug a ditch of 20’ long x 60` wide by the side of house standing on plots no. 672 and 673 by which the wall fell down causing a damage of rupees fifty thousand. The parties are pattedar and there were civil and criminal litigations between them. Further, no report was made to the police and witnesses stated that no petition was filed to the Superintendent of Police or Police Station and the fact is that the prosecution has not stated the name of the accused persons who have participated and a vague allegation has been made against all the accused persons. 3. Taking note that the witnesses has not mentioned the name of the persons who were demolished the wall and the fact that there was no dispute between the complainant and accused persons prior to the occurrence and that the judgment has been passed on 08.09.2009 the appeal has been preferred on 14.01.2010 and a petition for condoning the delay has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act mentioning that the judgment was passed on 08.09.2009, the application ought to have been filed on or before 10.11.2009, but, the same has been filed on 22.12.2009. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that since there was some defects in the 3 appeal and, thereafter, Court closed and so the time taken for removing the defect. The ground for delay has been mentioned that the appellant contacted his Lawyer at Siwan and it was advised to file Revision and there is no time limit to file Revision and further the appellant has to manage the necessary money and so that there is delay. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, opposes that no date has been mentioned when the advice was taken and what was the time taken for managing the necessary money and further it has been mentioned that there is no time limit for a Revision and, hence, the explanation for day- to-day delay has not been explained, therefore, the petition for delay is liable to be rejected as there is delay in filing the appeal. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances that the occurrence is of the year 1988 and the appeal has been filed against the order acquitting the accused persons for offences under Sections 144, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code delay of each day has not been explained, hence, it is finally held that no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay in filing the appeal has not properly been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, limitation petition is rejected. 4 6. The limitation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed consequently the Special Leave to Appeal is also dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )