Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16937/2015dismissed

Md. Nizamuddin v. The State Of Bihar

2019-06-21Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16937 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2010 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Nizamuddin, Son of Rahman Ansari resident of village - Ragdih, P.S. Barkattha, District - Hazaribagh Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-06-2019 Heard Ms. Sushmita Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Aslam Ansari, learned APP. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Cr. Rev. No. 289/13 whereby the revision petition of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation.

It appears that the petitioner has been convicted under the Forest Act by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Banka in Complaint Case No. 3/73/2010 and a sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- has been imposed upon

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16937 of 2015(2) dt.21-06-2019 2/2 the petitioner. For failure to pay the penalty amount, the judgment stipulates that the petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

No good ground was made out before the revisional court for condoning the delay in preferring the revision petition. Though the delay was not long enough but the law of limitation mandates that each day's delay has to be explained satisfactory. There is a purpose behind enacting Limitation Act so that stale claims may not be pressed and such cases may not choke the judicial system.

No good ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the revisional court.

The petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U T