Allahabad High Court
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The petition is dismissed as it lacks merit; the order condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is upheld.
Summary
Vijay Kumar Gupta filed a petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside the order dated 31‑08‑2026 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balia, which had allowed a revision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act despite the revision being time‑barred. The petitioner argued that the revision was filed after the prescribed period and that the revisional court had not recorded any reasons for condoning the delay. The court examined the factual timeline, noting that the complainant had left the state and only learned of the complaint on 19‑07‑2025, after which the revision was filed. The High Court found no error in the revisional court’s exercise of discretion and held that the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision filed beyond the limitation period can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without recording reasons.
- Whether the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge condoning the delay is liable to be set aside under Article 227.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Revision
- Criminal Procedure
- Article 227
- Time-barred filing
- Petition dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12660 of 2026
Vijay Kumar Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Kumar, Shamshad Alam
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The petition is filed with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to setaside the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by learned
Additional District and Session Judge Court No.1, Balia in Criminal
Revision No. 0305 of 2025 (Hariom Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
another) and/or may pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble
Court may consider fit and proper under the circumstances of the case,
otherwise the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complaint of respondent
no. 2 was rejected by order dated 4.7.2024. Against the aforesaid order,
revision was filed which was time barred. The application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act was allowed by impugned order at the cost of Rs.
1500/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no reasons
were given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
which resulted to condone the delay.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that complainant
had gone out of State and on 8.7.2025 when he came back then on
19.7.2025 he came to know about the about the complaint and thereafter
revision has been filed. This Court does not find error in the impugned
A227 No. 12660 of 2026
2
order passed by the revisional court. The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed accordingly.
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
September 14, 2026
VMA
Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…