AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.L. Anand, J.
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby allowed keeping in view the averments made in the application and for the purpose of advancement of justice which is the paramount consideration for the law courts.
On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgment passed by the Ist Appellant Court is not a judgment in law and it has not discussed in any portion of the judgment in the trial Court and in support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to para No. 7 of the impugned judgment. Sitting as a court of Revision the powers of this Court are limited to see for any illegality or irregularity causing prejudice to the petitioner set out or not. This Court is not sitting as a court of appeal. Admitted facts are that the appeal was pending before the Appellate Court since 1993. It is not the case of the counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor his lawyer appeared before the Court and the court itself had to go through the record and it did not find any ground to differ with the elaborate, well balanced judgment of the trial Court especially when the appellant had not preferred to appear and argue the case. Show must go on. A litigant or the lawyer cannot take the court for granted. The impugned judgment does not show that there was any illegality or nonapplication of mind on the part of the Ist Appellate Court. So the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stands replied.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is facing a protracted trial as the incident took place as back as in the year 1990. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires sympathetic consideration. Keeping in view the facts that the petitioner is suffering a protracted litigation and botheration it is hereby ordered that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner under Section 304A IPC for a period of 11/2 years is hereby reduced to one year. In all other respects the petition stands dismissed.
With the above modification in the matter of sentence this revision petition stands disposed of. All concerned be informed.
