Condonation of delay and release of seized funds on bank guarantee were upheld as valid judicial discretion.

Delay in filing a revision petition may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown and the revisional court exercises discretion to advance justice rather than defeat the matter on a technical objection. An interim direction to release seized money on furnishing a bank guarantee was also treated as a valid exercise of jurisdiction where the affected party's interest was safeguarded by an undertaking to comply with the final order and to return the amount with interest if required. On these principles, the challenge to the revisional order failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the revision petition could be condoned on sufficient cause; (ii) whether the order directing release of the seized amount on furnishing a bank guarantee was illegal or without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the revision petition could be condoned on sufficient cause.

Analysis: The delay was examined in the light of the explanation offered by the revisionist and the presence of sufficient grounds for not filing within time. The revisional court accepted those grounds and exercised its discretion to advance justice rather than defeat the revision on a technical objection.

Conclusion: The delay was validly condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the order directing release of the seized amount on furnishing a bank guarantee was illegal or without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The seized amount was ordered to be released to the company on security, with the accused's interest protected by an undertaking to abide by the final order and with liability to return the amount with interest if found entitled later. The order was treated as a proper exercise of jurisdiction in the circumstances and as a measure that avoided keeping a large amount idle during the trial.

Conclusion: The release order was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order failed, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court may condone delay on sufficient cause, and an interim order for release of seized property on adequate security is a valid exercise of jurisdiction when the affected party's interest is safeguarded.

---