Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner-Pritam Singh has filed the present revision petition challenging the judgment/order dated 28.7.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Malerkotla, by virtue of which the accused-Respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him.

The factual matrix necessary for the disposal of this petition is that on 20.10.2000 Pritam Singh lodged a report with the police, on the basis of which a case u/s 323/324/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'') was registered against Surjit Singh and his sons. On the same day, Surjit Singh and his son Bahadur Singh also got admitted in the hospital at Ahmedgarh and on that day Surjit Singh also suffered a statement before the police that Pritam Singh alongwith others gave injuries to him and on his raising hue and cry, all the accused persons fled away from the spot. An inquiry was conducted by SP (D) Sangrur, who came to the conclusion that Surjit Singh-Respondent No. 2 had caused injuries to Pritam Singh-Petitioner and when Surjit Singh had come to know that a case had been registered against them u/s 326 IPC, he lodged a false complaint and as such proceedings u/s 182 IPC were recommended against Surjit Singh-Respondent No. 2.

Calandra was presented before the Court and notice of accusation was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven witnesses and thereafter closed the evidence. Statement of accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false implication. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, available on the record, acquitted the accused-Respondent No. 2 from the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. Not satisfied with the said judgment, the Petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. Alongwith the petition an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition has been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and gone through the record.

Admittedly, there is delay of 100 days in filing the present revision petition. It is well settled principle of law that each day''s delay has to be explained. I find no sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the present revision petition. Otherwise also on merits, there is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order or the conclusion of acquittal is erroneous on the face of it. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show any manifest error of law or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. After going through the impugned judgment, I find that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.

As the Petitioner has failed to show any reasonable or sufficient cause for condonation of delay, therefore, there is no merit in the application for condonation of delay and as such the same is hereby dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the present petition is dismissed being time barred as well as on merits.