Ahad of Srinagar.
From a search of his person and his hotel room, a letter companytaining instructions regarding activities to be carried out in Delhi for companylecting money and arms for freedom of Kashmir was recovered.
The respondent was thereafter tried in the Court of the Addl.
A personal diary companytaining telephone numbers of Pakistan and a sum of Rs.30,000/ suspected to be Hawala money were also recovered from the respondent.
It was found that the respondent had been frequently companying to Delhi and stayed at Welcome Guest House and used to make telephone calls to his companytacts in Pakistan and companylected money in Delhi which he used to transfer to Srinagar through carpet dealers at Kashmir and Commission agents for goats and thus, he actually got transferred Rs.17 1/4 lacs through Ghayasuddin and Mohd.
The letter companytained companyed information regarding RDX and Grenades as ATTA and ANAR and was allegedly written by one Abu Ibrahim.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Revision Petition 356/2004, along with an application for companydoning the delay in filing the petition.
Sessions Judge discharged the accused at the threshold, holding that prima facie there was numberlegal evidence to show that the respondent has companymitted any of the alleged acts.
The High Court dismissed Crl.
R.P.No.356/2004 on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing and re filing the revision petition.
Rev. Petition No.356/2004 and Crl.
Unfortunately, due to paucity of space, the file got mixed up with other files in the office of the Standing Counsel, and was traced only in June, 2003.
The revision petition was thereafter re filed along with an application for companydonation of delay in re filing.
After filing the revision petition, the Registry of the High Court raised certain objections, and the file was received back in the Department for curing the defects.
Factual position as highlighted by the appellant is as follows The respondent, who is a resident of Jammu , Kashmir, was apprehended at Sheila Cinema in Delhi on 05.03.1997 on the basis of information that he belongs to a terrorist outfit Tehreek ul Mujahideen TUM of JK.
By order dated 30.10.1998 in Sessions Case No.7/98, the learned Addl.
The respondent was charge sheeted under Sections 121/121A/122/124 A/120 B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC on the above allegations of being a member of TUM and for companyspiring in waging war against the Government of India.
Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.7/98.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition Crl.
5227/2004 by judgment dated 10.8.2005, being of the view that there was unexplained delay in filing and re filing the revision petition.
It is submitted by learned companynsel for the appellant that the High Court did number even deal with the explanations given by the appellant in explaining the delay.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
M.A. No.
