State of Haryana vs The Bhiwani Textile Mills and others

Gurnam Singh, J.—On the basis of two First Information Reports Nos R. C 6 (PS) 1/67 (III) aud R. C. 7/SPE/FSI/67 dated 13th June, 1967 and 7th July, 1967, respectively four chalans, had been (sic) up against M/s Bhiwani Textile Mills Bhi(sic) wani, M/s Technological insitute of Taxation, Bhiwani and M/s Biela(sic) Cotton Mills, Malout etc., under "Sections 120 B, Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act etc , in the Court of Special Judicial Magistral Ist Class for the State of Haryana at Ambala Cantt.

The Special Judiclal(sic) Magistrate Ist Class for the State of Haryana, Ambala Cantt, decided three of the four cases on 21st December, 1968 and the fourth one on 23rd January, 1969 and in all the four cases, the accused were discharged.

The State through the Public Prosecutor Central Bureau of Investigation, new Delhi., filed four criminal revision petitions in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hissar, against the judgment of the Special Judicial Magistrate in all the four cases, alleging that the trial Magistrate had erred both on facts and law, in discharging the accused and that his orders have resulted in miscarriage of justice and the same be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, vide he order dated 1st December, 1969 returned all the revision petitions, for presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction holding that the court at Hissar had no jurisdiction to hear these revision petitions.

The State, through its Special Public Prosecutor, then presented those revision petitions in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala, along with applications u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, on 4th December, 1969, However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, did not condone the delay and dismissed the applications filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act vide his order dated 6th December, 1974, in all the four cases.

Being aggrieved with the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, the State, through the Special Public Prosecutor, filed Criminal Revisions Nos. 296, 297, 298 and 299 of 1975 in this Court, for setting aside the order of discharge of the accused persons passed by the Spacial Judicial Magistrat for the State of Haryana and Criminal Revisions Nos. 300, 301, 302 and 303 of 1975, for setting aside the order passed by the learnad Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby he has declined to condoned(sic) the delay and dismissed the applications.

In all the aforesaid eight Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302 and 303 of 1975, notice on the point of limitation only was given. Since the point involved in all the aforesaid revision petitions is one and the same, these petitions will be disposed of by this Single Order.

The revision petitions filed in the Court of Sessions Judge at Hissar remained pending in his Court, for about nine months. The learned Additional Sessons Judge, Ambala, did not condone the delay mainly on the ground, that the act of the Legal Advisor in fin(sic) the revision petitions in the Court at Hissar, was not bona fide one and did not fall within the meaning of sufficient cause as contemplated u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out, that the revision petitions were filed In the Court of Seasons Judge at Hissar under legal advice of a counsel of long standing and in good faith and as such the delay may be condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

The period for filing revision petitions according to Article 131 of the Act, is ninety days from the date of the order sought to be revised. Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Act, any such application made after the prescribed period, shall be dismissed. u/s 5 of the Act, any such applecation can be admitted after the prescribed period of limitation if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not prcfering such application within limitation. Section 14 of the Act will not be applicable in this cue because it relates to suits. Thus the point to be considered in these revision petitions is as to whether the delay can be condoned under the powers conferred u/s 5 of the Act or not The satisfaction of the Court, regarding the existence of a sufficient cause, for not prefering the revision petitions within time is necessary. The expression "sufficient cases" is not defined but it has been held that it must mean a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of Section 5 of the Act The Petitioner''s main contention is that the revision petitions were filed at Hissar because of the Legal advice of their counsel. To prove that a mistaken advice had been given by the counsel, some material must be placed before the Court, from which It is possible to deduce that the counsel acted in "good faith" and gave the advice with due care and attention. The Petitioner has not specifically alleged as to who was the counsel who had advised for filling the revision petitions in the Court of Sessions at Hissar. In the affidavit furnished by Shri Ved Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, with Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1974 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala, he stated as under:

The advice was obtained from skilled and competent person who had longstanding at the Bar and that Shri Mohan Kumar-Mangalam ex-Advocat: - General Madras was the Senior Counsel in the matter. I further say that the matter was given due care and attention and the Adocate who gave the opinion had exercised re-asonable care and that there was no negligence, or want of, due skill and that the view taken by the Advocate was such as would have been entertained by any competent person exercising reasonable skill.

It is thus evident, that no name of the counsel was given by Shri Ved Parkash, Deputy Superintendent of Polic. As would appear from the orders under revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, put a specific question to Shri Lal Kishore, Counsel for the Petitioner, as to whether the advice of the counsel was obtained in writing and his reply was that the advice was oral one. He was further asked to disclose the name of the person who rendered such advise and he did not name any person. The counsel appearing for the Petitioner could not disclose as to who had rendered the advice for filing the petitions at Hissar. Thus there was no material before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, to find out as to whether any advice by any counsel was given or the same was given after reasonable care and caution and was bona fide. It was further urged that the petitions were presented by Mr. Verma, Advocate, who is since dead, but from the record It appears that the petitions were presented by one Joti Ram No affidavit of Joti Ram, has even been produed to show that the petition had been drafted by Mr. Verma after due deliberations and consultations. A mistake of the Agent cannot be a sufficient cause unless it is committed bona fide. The cases in hand are such in which the patitioner has not even named the counsel on whose advice these petitions were filed at Hissar.

Then it was urged that the State had not to gain anything in filing the revision petitions in a wrong Court at Hissar. This contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is beyond the scope of the requirements of Section 5 of the Act. A party in whoso favour an order has been made ought not to be deprived of the advantage given to it unless the plea of the opposite party satisfies the requirements of law. No special indulgence can be shown to the Government. Law of limitation is applicable equally to a private Individual as also to the Government.

Cases of Special Police Establishment are to be tried by the Magistrate Ist Class at Ambala vide High Court Notification No 146-Gaz/(sic)S Si C. 22 dated 18th July, 1968, and vide Notification No. 218 -6 GS 67/11479(sic) issued by the Haryana Government on 26th June, 1967, the Sessions Judge of Ambala Sessions Division was appointed by virtue of his office to be an Additional Sessions Judge of the Sessions Divisions of Karnal, Gurgaon, Rohtak and Hissar for the purpose of bearing appeals arising out of the special police establishment cases and that be may sit at the headquarters of any of these Sessions Divisions for the disposal of such cases. It has been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, that a pertinent question was put to Mr. Lal Kishore, as to whether he could refer to any case in which, a revision petition was ever filed by the C B I authorities against the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate in the Court of Sessions of the district in which the offence was committed but he showed his incapacity to cite any single revision petition which was filed in the Court in whose jurisdiction the effence was committed though the case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate. This was also a circumstance from which the learned Additional Sessions Judge inferred that the Act of the legal advisor, if any, was not bona fida one and does not fall within the meaning of "sufficient cause" as contemplated in Section 5 of the Limitation Act In view of all these circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that there was no case for seeking indulgence of the Court for seeking condonation of delay.

The object of revisional jurisdiction is to confer upon superior criminal Courts a kind of supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice Where there has been no failure of justice; the High Court will not interfere in revision though there may have been an irregularity or an impropriety in the proceedings of the lower Court In all the revision petitions in hand, it cannot he said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ambala, exercised(sic) discretionary powers perversely or illegally so as to warrant inee(sic) by the High Court in revision. These revision petitions (Nos 296 to 20 of 1975)(sic) are, therefore, dismissed.