Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) BY filing the instant Revisional Application the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order being order No. 13 dated 7th July, 2014 passed by the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014 dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and thereby not admitting the said Criminal Appeal preferred by the present petitioner challenging the judgment passed on 30th September, 2013 by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in connection with case No. C -225 of 2003 convicting the present petitioner and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 6,00,000/ -, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months more.
(2.) MR . Sandipan Ganguly, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014. Since there was some delay in preferring the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. But unfortunately, the Learned Advocate for the petitioner was engaged in some other Courts and he could not appear when such application was called on for hearing and consequently the matter was heard and disposed of exparte. He further submitted that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced for such exparte rejection order, which has ultimately resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him the petitioner has been gagged and his substantive right of preferring appeal against the order of conviction and sentence has been denied to him by the impugned order. He further submitted that the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, should have shown greater indulgence and flexibility in applying the law of limitation since it was a case of conviction and imposition of sentence. Thus he concluded by submitting that the impugned order is illegal and it is liable to be set aside. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Ghafoor & Another V. State of Bihar reported in : (2012)1 C Cr.LR (SC)57 in support of his submission. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 vehemently opposed such submission made by his Learned adversary and contended that this Court while exercising revision jurisdiction cannot interfere with the impugned order which is passed correctly and after proper exercise of judicial discretion. He further contended that the present petitioner was absolutely negligent and he had shown no bona fide. Even the petitioner could not assign any cogent explanation or reason for the delay. Not only that the petitioner did not show any interest on the dates of hearing of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and he remained absent and for such wanton attitude of the petitioner, the Court was compelled to hear the application exparte and passed the impugned order. He further contended that the ratio of the cited decision cannot be applied to the instant case in view of the distinguishing features, specially on the face of laches and negligence shown by the petitioner. He, therefore, insisted upon dismissal of the instant Revisional Application.
(3.) HAVING regard to the rival submission and contention advanced by the Learned Advocates in the light of the decision placed, I would like to say that in exercising discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Court's approach should be pragmatic. I would like to mention further that the Revisional power of the High Court, is wide enough and must be exercised to further the ends of justice. In cases of serious miscarriage of justice, it possesses unfettered power to interfere.;