JUDGMENT : Shah, J. 1. Before the Sessions Judge of Kolaba, Alibag, sixteen persons were put up for trial for offences punishable under Section 302, 452, 323 read with and Sections 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted five persons out of the sixteen tried before him of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. They were original Accused 1, 3, 4, 6 and 13. The order of conviction was passed on August 25, 1966. Three out of the convicts, Accused 1, 3 and 4 preferred an appeal to the High Court of Bombay on January 5, 1967, through jail. The memo of appeal was apparently drafted in jail and an application for condonation of delay was also sent with the memo of appeal from jail. In the application for condonation of delay it was mentioned that the appellants "were assured by their relatives that they would file an appeal but they could not manage to do so. As such the appellants asked for copies of judgment through jail which was delivered to them on December 31, 1966". From the examination memo by the Registry of the High Court it appears that an application for certified copy was made on November 10, 1966. Evidently the application was not filed within sixty days from the date on which the judgment was delivered by the Court of Session. On the footing, therefore, that there was a delay of 73 days in lodging the memorandum of appeal, the High Court rejected the application for condonation and also passed an order of summary dismissal of the appeal. We assume that the appeal was not heard on its merits and it was dismissed only on the ground that it was not presented within time. The High Court has stated that the excuse given in the application is the "usual excuse and the Court is not satisfied about the truth of the allegations". 2. Under the Limitation Act, time required for obtaining a certified copy, if the application is made after the expiry of the period of limitation, is not liable to the excluded. But here the appellants who were convicted of serious offences and here sentenced to imprisonment for life and were detained in jail. 2. Under the Limitation Act, time required for obtaining a certified copy, if the application is made after the expiry of the period of limitation, is not liable to the excluded. But here the appellants who were convicted of serious offences and here sentenced to imprisonment for life and were detained in jail. They have stated that they relied upon the assurances of their relatives and ultimately they were compelled to file their memoranda of appeal from jail. The time taken by the office of the Sessions Judge for supplying the certified copies was 51 days and apparently the memo of appeal must have been filed after the reopening of the Court in the new year. The delay in truth was, therefore, only of about 20 or 22 days. It is true that no details are given in the application about the names of the relatives who were expected to engage lawyers and about the time when the appellants were informed that no appeal would be lodged by the appellant in the High Court. However having regard to the circumstances and especially the fact that the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for a very serious offence, this is a case in which a somewhat lenient view may be taken and the right of appeal on the merits may be permitted to be exercised by them even though the memo of appeal was not filed within the time prescribed by law. 3. We set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that the proceedings be remanded to the High Court to be dealt with and disposed of according to law.