Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 418 (MP)

Ghansu yadav v. State of M. P.

2005-03-22

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2005
JUDGMENT This petition is directed by the applicants against the order dated 21.2.2005 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Criminal Appeal No. 21/05 which was preferred against the judgment dated 17.12.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chhatarpur in Criminal Case No. 162/01, by which the applicants were found guilty under section 332 and 323 of IPC and awarded sentence of one year RI to each applicant on first count and one year RI each on second count. Above said appeal was preferred at belated stage alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay by mentioning sufficient cause but the same was dismissed resultantly appeal was also dismissed thereby the judgment of the trial Court has become final. hence this revision. The merits of the appeal were not considered by the appellate Court because same was dismissed in view of dismissal of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, mentioning of other facts of the prosecution case are not necessary in this order. Only the question regarding sufficiency of cause in tiling the said appeal at belated stage are to be examined. If there was sufficient cause then the appeal should have been decided on merits by Court by allowing the said application. It is an undisputed fact that the judgment of the trial Court was rendered on 1.7.12.2004 and all the applicants were released for one month by suspending the jail sentence, during this period applicants had to file an appeal to have an order for suspension of sentence but neither the appeal was filed nor any order was obtained regarding said suspension till filing the appeal on 11.2.2005. alongwith the said application for condonation of delay. As per averments of applicant due to some domestic difficulty of the learned counsel for the applicants, the appeal was not preferred within time, the said application was supported by an affidavit also and as submitted no evidence or documents was submitted by the respondent in rebuttal. Therefore, there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and hearing the appeal on merits. Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that due to mistake or negligence on the part of advocate, parties should not be suffered but this aspect was not considered by appellate Court. Therefore, there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and hearing the appeal on merits. Even otherwise it is settled principle of law that due to mistake or negligence on the part of advocate, parties should not be suffered but this aspect was not considered by appellate Court. Beside this it is also settled that the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act should be considered in a liberal manner to do justice between the panics on merits and cases should not be thrown away only on technical grounds. The approach of the Court should always be justice oriented and not otherwise. In view of aforesaid circumstances, I find sufficient cause in filing the appeal by the applicants at belated stage. Thus the application filed by [he present applicants is hereby allowed and the order of the Sessions Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate Court for consideration on merits of the criminal appeal with direction to hear the appeal on merits and decide according to law. In view of aforesaid I.A. No. 1612/05 is also considered and allowed and it is hereby directed that the applicants be released on furnishing their personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- each alongwith the surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of appellate Court till disposal of the appeal but subject to appearance Oil every date of hearing. Revision is al1owcd. C.C. as per rules.