Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 150 (PNJ)

Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-01-17

T.P.S.MANN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- The petitioner was tried for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.7.2011, convicted him for the aforementioned offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 304-A IPC and imprisonment for six months under Section 279 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. As the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, an application was also filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 8½ months in filing of the appeal. Vide order dated 7.6.2013, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar found no ground to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and the appeal also dismissed being time barred. Hence, the present revision. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner had averred that after being convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, he went to Maharashtra where he fell sick as a case of severe jaundice. He started taking medicines but his health started deteriorating day by day. However, when he recovered somewhat from his ailment that the petitioner returned to his village in the first week of November 2011 and got admitted in Kamal Hospital and Nursing Home, Adda Daburji, village Thathi Khaira, District Tarn Taran. At the time of his discharge from the said hospital on 21.11.2011, he was asked to take follow up treatment and advised complete bed rest for one month. Despite the same, his condition did not improve and he started taking Ayurvedic treatment. Only after being able to move and walk that he could file the appeal before the lower appellate Court and alongwith the same filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and, accordingly, the lower appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. 3. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and, accordingly, the lower appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. 3. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State counsel, the petitioner is behind the bars as a convict since 7.6.2013 when the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the lower appellate Court being time barred. Apart from the same, the petitioner had remained as under trial for one month and three days. Therefore, by now the petitioner has undergone an actual period of more than 8 months. 4. In view of the above, the revision is accepted, application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed and the order dated 7.6.2013 dismissing the appeal being time barred is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court to take the appeal back on its board and decide the same after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing appropriate bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.