Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2705 (ALL)

Lalloo Khan v. State of U. P.

2019-12-04

ANIL KUMAR IX

body2019
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar-IX, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for applicants and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This application under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Misc. Criminal Appeal No. 5/11/18 (State v. Lalloo and others) under section 378, Cr.P.C. P.S.-Sumerpur, District Hamirpur whereby the Court below has allowed delay condonation application (4-Ka) of opposite party on cost ` 200/- condoning the delay in filing the criminal appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case is that Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of 2017 (State v. Lalloo and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 112/2017 under sections 41, 42, 26 Indian Forest Act 1927, section 3/28 Uttar Pradesh Aara Machine Establishment and Regulation Rules, 1978 and sections 379 and 411, I.P.C., P.S. Sumerpur, District-Hamirpur, was finally decided by the Court of A.C.J.M., Hamirpur on 30.10.2017. The applicants-accused persons were acquitted from the charges. Appeal against the above judgment was preferred by the State beyond 12 days from the limitation period with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act on the ground that Public Prosecutor was busy in other Government work therefore appeal could not be filed within limitation period. This application moved under section 5 Limitation Act was allowed by Sessions Judge, Hamirpur by impugned order dated 15.10.2019 and delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants contended that learned Sessions Judge acted illegally in allowing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application moved under section 5 Limitation Act was not supported by the affidavit. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicants and submitted that delay was only of 12 days and there was sufficient ground for allowing the application. 6. In the instant case application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay was filed by the State and in matter concerning State it should be kept in mind that generally decision is taken at various level which takes time. 6. In the instant case application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay was filed by the State and in matter concerning State it should be kept in mind that generally decision is taken at various level which takes time. In State v. Heera, (2004) 13 SCC 582 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when State comes with a prayer for condonation of delay it is to be remembered that decision is required to be taken at various level which causes delay therefore Court should consider this aspect in deciding whether delay should be condoned or not. In case in hand ground mentioned in the application was that public prosecutor was busy in other Government works due to which appeal could be filed beyond 12 days from the limitation period. Learned Court below has rightly concluded that there was sufficient ground for the delay. 7. Learned Counsel for applicants vehemently contended that application moved under section 5 Limitation Act was not supported with affidavit therefore it was argued that it was illegally allowed by the Court below but when the Court is satisfied that ground mentioned in the application was sufficient for filing the appeal beyond 12 days from the limitation then it was not necessary to support the application with a separate affidavit. In the case of Davinder Pal Sehgal and another v. M/s. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills, AIR 2001 SC 451 reported in Hon'ble Apex Court has held that even separate application for condonation of delay is not necessary for condoning the delay. 8. In view of the above, the prayer made by learned Counsel for applicant is hereby refused. 9. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that Court below has not acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this application under section 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.