HI6H COURT W CHHATnS6ARH AT KELASPIB (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P.SHARMA. J^ Cr.rt.P.No.484 of Devendra Kumer Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ORDERBEPOSTE&fORPRONOUNCEMkENTON \\ /1/2010 Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge .•H' ^ r HIW COURT W CHHAmS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.484 of 2009 Apolicont Oavendra Kumar Singh Aged 43 years S/6 Late Shri Badri Narayan Singh, Forest Range Officer, Residentof Viilage 6un-"r P.S.H. & Tahsi! - fSurur District (c.e.) Non-aDDlicant Versus S'tate of Chhntt-isgarh Through Police Station House ftjrup &is*rjct Gurg (Chhuttisgarh) (Petition under section 48-2 read with Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.) (S8: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, -J.) !^ Present: Mr. Adiok Verma with Mr.6<ijendra Sahu, counsel for the oppl'cont. Mr.Arvind famar Dubey, Ponel iawyer for -the State/non-oppiicant. CTl&ER (Delivered on fl January. 2010) 1. This is petition under Section 482 read wilh Sectjon 362 of -1+ie Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (in shorl- *the Code') for revfew of •the order dated 10.7.2(X)9 possed by lliis Court- (Hon'ble Stwi &ilip Staosahab Deshmukh, J) in Criminal Revision No.324/2009, whersby revision was dismissed on the ground cs time barred. 2. Learned counsel for -riie applic<mt subfhitted that reyision has not been decided finally, therefore, it msy be henrd and decided finally and detay in filing -the revision moy be condoned. 3. The r-evision WQS directed against the judgment dated 5.2.2009 passed by the .Add'tioncl Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Balod ui Crtmina! Appeal No.82/2008 dismissing the appeutagainst the judgment of acquittol dated 4.1.20( possed by -the Judicial Magistrote pirst Class, Balod; in Criminal Case No.601/2007 whereby learned Judicial Magistmts First :» -a~~<%. -^, -^ JJ •:.-:s-^-' -2-- Ctass has acquitted the respondent of the charges of Sections 294, K)6- B and 186 of the Indian Pena! Code. 4. The revision was not admitt'ed for hearing. &io Mo'tuofMwn has not been token ogcinst the judgment of acquittal- The applicomt was under obligation to explain delay of three months, but he has not e)<plained the same. The judgment of acquittal wasatready chaltenged «'< ths appea!, wherein the (ypellate Court has a!so arrived at d finding that the Court below has "ot committed any illegality in acquittin9 the oppetlant. 5. In the absence of explanation for filing •the revision after tapss of limitation, no option except to dismiss the r'evision was left. 6. I do not find any ground for invoking extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The petit'on is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. T. P. Sharma Judge