STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM KUMAR
LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-19
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 04,2021

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
RAM KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia,J. - (1.) The present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been maintained by the applicant for condonation of delay of 227 days, in filing the instant appeal. As per the applicant, in the instant case, certified copy of the impugned judgment was applied on 01.10.2018 and the same was delivered on 04.10.2018. On receipt of the certified copy, the case was examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, thereafter, the case was sent by the District Magistrate, Solan, to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for taking further decision. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Law Department, for seeking their opinion on 17.11.2018. Further, the case was submitted to the competent authority on 05.12.2018, thereafter, vide letter, dated 10.12.2018, the case file was sent to the concerned office, for filing an appeal before this Court. The learned Advocate General's Office, vide his letter, dated 11.12.2018, returned the case file with an opinion that the limitation for filing an appeal has been expired and requested to send the application for condonation of delay, so that the appeal be filed. The application is duly supported with an affidavit.
(2.) Reply to the application has been filed and it is averred that there is no explanation of not applying for the copy of judgment dated 08.03.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, till 01.10.2018. However, in the instant case, no reason has come forth between 08.3.2018 to 01.10.2018. The respondent-accused was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, on 08.03.2018, after setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Court below. Since, no plausible explanation has come forth between 08.03.2018 to 01.10.2018, the delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned and as such, the same may be dismissed. Reply to the application is also duly supported with an affidavit.
(3.) Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the delay has occurred for the reason that it was beyond the control of applicant and is required to be condoned, as it has occurred because the file remained moving from one table to another table.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.