Crl. Rev. No. 904/01 (Old No. 1257 of 1995) Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. None appear for the revisionist. Heard Sri K. S. Rautela brief holder for the State and perused the record. The revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’) was preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nainital and since it was preferred beyond time an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was moved. There was delay of 56 days and to explain the same the affidavit of the revisionist- Kundan Singh was filed. Perusal of the same reveal that no positive explanation for delay had been given. Rather a vague and indefinite averment had been made to the effect that due to serious illness and some other disturbance the revision could not be preferred within time. There was considerable delay of 56 days and there is nothing in the affidavit which may show as to when the revisionist fell ill and where he got the treatment for his illness. It is thus evident that the assertion is highly discrepant and vague and no sufficient cause had been shown. Therefore, the delay cannot be legally condoned. For the reasons aforesaid, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and as a consequence thereof the revision being barred by time is also rejected. Consign. (Irshad Hussain, J.) Dated 08.04.2004 Rawat