- (1.) WE have heard submissions of both the sides, perused delay condonation application and supporting affidavit.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contends that delay occasioned in filing the appeal was beyond control of the applicant. The applicant being Pardanasheen lady is not aware of the proceedings of the Court and she could not gather information with regard to any appeal being filed by the Government against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2005. When she made query from the High Court, she came to know that no appeal has been filed by the Government challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2005. Further submitted that the said judgment is already referred to State Government for appeal. Therefore, the instant appeal has been filed by the complainant -applicant at this stage.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , this delay condonation application has been moved through counsel. In the prayer clause, there is no mention of any description of the impugned judgment or sessions trial concerned. The very cause shown for delay is stated in para 6 of the affidavit to the effect that brother -in -law of deponent was first informant in the impugned judgment and he was murdered and this frightened her family and she did not make any query. It was only when opposite party no.2 Daddu Pandey @ Rakesh Pandey was convicted in another case on 31.07.2012 that she preferred appeal and filed delay condonation application.;