Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Shiv Mandhukar Giri, was convicted in R.C.C. No.2156/2007 by the 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The judgment of conviction was passed on 25.02.2010. The applicant filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, along with an application for condonation of delay of 10 days. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the condonation application on the ground that the applicant was in jail and could have filed the appeal earlier. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court. The High Court observed that the delay was only 10 days and the applicant had explained the delay by stating that he was in custody and had to arrange for funds and engage a lawyer. The court held that the approach should be liberal in condoning delay to allow the appeal to be heard on merits. The court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and allowed the condonation of delay, directing the appeal to be heard on merits. The revision application was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He filed an appeal with a delay of 10 days. The Sessions Court rejected the condonation application on the ground that the applicant was in jail and could have filed the appeal earlier. The High Court held that the delay was not deliberate and the applicant had sufficient cause, as he was in custody and had to arrange for funds and engage a lawyer. The court emphasized a liberal approach in condoning delay to allow the appeal to be heard on merits. (Paras 3-8) B) Criminal Procedure - Right to Appeal - Deprivation of Right - The rejection of the condonation application effectively deprived the applicant of his right to appeal against conviction. The High Court held that the right to appeal is a valuable right and should not be defeated on technical grounds of delay when the delay is explained. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in rejecting the applicant's application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against conviction, thereby depriving him of his right to appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, set aside the order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, and allowed the application for condonation of delay. The appeal is directed to be heard on merits.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Liberal approach
- Right to appeal
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
