Connected revisions and condonation of delay prevent inconsistent rejection on limitation where the same evidence was already disbelieved.

A revision petition challenging a penalty based on the same confessional statement could not be rejected as time-barred when a connected revision had already been entertained and allowed on merits after the statement was found to have been taken under coercion. Because both revisions were supported by applications for condonation of delay, rejecting only the second petition on limitation was inconsistent and unsustainable. The impugned orders were quashed, and the matter ended without remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition against the penalty order could be rejected as time-barred when the connected revision on the same confessional statement had already been entertained and allowed on merits.

Analysis: The penalty under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 rested on the same confessional statement. The earlier revision had been accepted on the finding that the statement was taken under coercion and could not be relied upon. Since both revision petitions were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay, the rejection of the second revision solely on limitation was inconsistent and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection of the second revision petition as time-barred was unjustified and was liable to be set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was brought to an end without remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where connected proceedings rest on the same foundational material and delay-condonation requests are on record, a revision cannot be rejected as time-barred merely after the same basis has already been disbelieved and relief granted in the companion matter.

---