Paritosh Kumar Saha v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

ORAL JUDGMENT : ORALORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The second respondent is the original complainant who filed a complaint alleging commission of offences under section 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 read with section 63 of the Copyrights Act, 1957. On the said complaint, process was issued by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner filed criminal writ petition no.1553/2003 in this Court for challenging order issuing process. By order dated 12th June 2006, the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to file a revision application against the order issuing process. The said order notes that if the revision application was filed within four weeks from that date, the same shall be considered and : 2 : decided by the learned Sessions Court on merits. On 21st September 2006, time to file the revision application was extended by this Court by a period of two weeks by way of last chance. It appears that the revision application was filed on 15th May 2007. Time granted by this Court to file revision application expired on 10th October 2006. As there was a delay in filing revision application, a miscellaneous application was filed for condonation of delay. By order dated 12th June 2007, the application for condonation of delay has been dismissed.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has challenged the said order passed by the Sessions Court as well as the order passed by the Court of learned Magistrate of issue of process.

The ground taken by the petitioner for condonation of delay was that the work of filing of revision application was assigned to an advocate working in the Firm of Advocates engaged by the petitioner. It is alleged that the said advocate left the Firm and the revision application remained to be filed. When the : 3 : petitioner made inquiry with the Firm, it was realised that the revision application was not filed. The objection of the learned counsel by the second respondent is that the revision application was not filed within a period of two weeks as provided in order dated 21st September 2006, and time was granted under the said order as a last chance. It is contended that there is no explanation for delay.

I have considered the submissions. The result of the orders passed by this Court is that if the revision application would have been filed within the time provided by this Court, the same was required to be entertained without an objection regarding limitation. As the revision application was not filed within the time provided by this Court, a separate application for condonation of delay was taken out by the petitioner as reflected from the impugned order dated 12th June 2007. The reason for delay set out by the petitioner before the Sessions Court was that the work of filing revision application was assigned to an advocate working with the Firm to whom the petitioner had entrusted the matter. The said advocate left the Firm and therefore, the revision application remained to be filed. It is stated that only when the petitioner made inquiry with the : 4 : Firm, it was realised that the revision application was not filed. Thus, the fault appears on the part of the advocate who was working with the Firm. This is not a case where any negligence can be alleged against the petitioner in the matter of filing revision application. He had taken steps for the purposes of filing revision application. In my view, the delay ought to have been condoned. The prejudice which may be caused to the second respondent can be compensated by ordering payment of adequate costs. The costs are quantified at Rs.7,500/-.

Hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The impugned order dated 12th June 2007 is quashed and set aside and miscellaneous application no.718/2007 is allowed. (2) The delay stands condoned subject to condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.7,500/- to the second respondent within a period of six weeks from today. The payment of costs will be a condition precedent. The deposit of the amount of costs with the Sessions Court within the stipulated time will be treated : 5 : as a sufficient compliance. (3) The Sessions Court will register the criminal revision application provided compliance is made with the order directing payment of costs. (4) If compliance is made, the revision application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of registration of the revision application. (5) All contentions of the parties in the pending revision application are expressly kept open. (6) The parties and the concerned Court to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. (A.S.Oka,J)