Patna High Court – Orders
Rakesh Kumar Roy vs The State Of Bihar on 16 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.995 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2021 Thana- DAGARUA District- Purnia
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Roy Son of Shri Shivanand Roy Resident of Village-
Gunwanti, Ward No. 02, P.O.- Gunwanti, P.S.- Bousi, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Rajpati, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
ORAL ORDER
3 16-07-2025
This is an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act filed by the petitioner praying for condonation of
delay by 319 days in filing the instant criminal revision.
2. It is pertinent at the outset to mention that the
petitioner being an accused of Supplementary Special Case
No.74 of 2021 challenged an order dated 10.10.2023 passed by
the learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Purnea, whereby and
whereunder the learned Court below took cognizance of offence
against the petitioner under Section 8(c), 21(a) of the N.D.P.S.
Act, although, the Investigating Officer submitted final report
under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. stating, inter-alia, that the
involvement of the petitioner could not be ascertained in
connection with the above-mentioned case.
3. Since, the revisional application was filed after the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.995 of 2024(3) dt.16-07-2025
2/5
expiry of the period of limitation, the instant application has
been filed for condonation of delay. It is submitted by the
petitioner that against the impugned order dated 10.10.2023,
revision ought to have been filed within 08th January, 2024.
However, the petitioner failed to file the instant revision
assailing the order of cognizance taken by the learned Special
Judge within the statutory period of limitation as he was not
aware of the law of limitation governed in connection with
filing of criminal revision.
4. It is also alleged by the petitioner that due to lack of
information, knowledge and funds, the revisional application
could not be filed within the statutory period of time. It is
further pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner had no
intentional latches in filing the criminal revision after statutory
period of limitation and therefore, delay in filing the revision
may be condoned.
5. This Court has already stated that the criminal
revision is barred by limitation by 319 days. The petitioner
obviously has prayed for ignorance of law in support of his
prayer for condonation of delay. When confronted with the issue
that ignorance of law cannot be a ground for condonation of
delay, the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner refers to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.995 of 2024(3) dt.16-07-2025
3/5
a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Just
Rights For Children Alliance and Another Vs. S. Harish and
others, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611.
6. The fact of the above-mentioned reported decision
is completely different from the facts of the instant application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the aforesaid reported
decision charge-sheet was filed against respondent No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and
Section 67(b) of Information Technology Act. Amongst other
defence, the accused/respondent No.1 took a plea that he was
ignorant of the law contained in Section 15 of the POCSO Act,
which prescribes punishment for storage of pornographic
material involving child.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to decide
the plea in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in
Chandi Kumar Das Karmakar Vs. Abanidhar Roy, reported in
AIR 1965 SC 585 and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409.
8. In para-211 of Just Rights For Children Alliance
and Another (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as herein
under :-
“211. This may be better understood
through a four-prong test wherein for a valid defence,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.995 of 2024(3) dt.16-07-2025
4/5there must exist (1) an ignorance or unawareness of
any law and (2) such ignorance or unawareness must
give rise to a corresponding reasonable and legitimate
right or claim (3) the existence of such right or claim
must be believed bonafide and (4) the purported act
sought to be punished must take place on the strength
of such right or claim. It is only when all the four of
the above conditions are fulfilled, that the person
would be entitled to take a plea of ignorance of law as
a defence from incurring any liability”
9. In the instant case, ignorance of law was not taken
by the petitioner as a defence. On the other hand, it was taken as
a ground for condonation of delay. Even assuming that the
petitioner was ignorant about the law of limitation, such
ignorance does not give rise to a corresponding reasonable and
legitimate right of claim. In other words, ignorance of law of
limitation does not give rise to a legitimate right to the petitioner
to file a revisional application even after expiry of the period of
limitation. The petitioner failed to prove that it was his bonafide
believe that law of limitation is not applicable in case of
criminal revision. The revisional application was filed
challenging legality, propriety and validity of an order of
cognizance taken against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under NDPS Act. The impugned order could not be
challenged on the strength of any right allegedly acquired by the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.995 of 2024(3) dt.16-07-2025
5/5
petitioner.
10. Therefore, the principles laid down in Just Rights
For Children Alliance and another by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court is not applicable under the facts and circumstances of this
case.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that
the petitioner failed to explain delay in filing the instant
revision. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is dismissed.
12. With the dismissal of the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the revisional application is also
dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
mdrashid/-
U T