Patna High Court - Orders
Shri Nagendra Prasad Lal vs Union Of India (C.B.I.) on 23 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (SJ) No.181 of 1995
SHRI NAGENDRA PRASAD LAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (C.B.I.)
-----------
For the appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, sr. Adv.
Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha No.1.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advs.
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, S.C.
6. 23.11.2010I.A.No. a2062 of 201 is a petition filed u/s 394(2) Cr.P.C. by Smt. Urmila Devi and Arun Kumar Sinha respectively the widow and son of deceased appellant Nagendra Prasad Lal who stood convicted u/s 5 (1) (c ) and 5(2) read with Section 5(1)
(c) and (d) of the P.C. Act and who died on 14th June 2010.
After filing of the aforesaid I.A., an another petition under I.A.No. 2118 of 2010 was filed on 28th October 2010 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in filing the aforesaid I.A.No. 2062 of 2010 which was filed on 8th October 2010. Besides this, one another I.A.No. 2224 of 2010 has also been filed on 22nd November 2010 wherein it is stated that the deceased-appellant Nagendra Prasad Lal was employed as Assistant Grade-II in the F.C.I. at Bhagalapur and that he had superannuated on 30th November 1992 and that after superannuation, he received 90 per cent of pension as provisional pension which he continued to receive regularly till March 2010 and that the receiving of the provisional pension had continued even after the conviction by the trial court which was passed by the judgment dated 16th August 1995.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the 2 deceased-appellant was an employee of the F.C.I. and he received 90 per cent of his pension till his death. It is further submitted by him that the two petitioners under I.A.No. 2062 of 2010 are the widow and son of the deceased and that they are highly interested in the prosecution of this appeal, inasmuch as they will be highly prejudiced in their right of family pension which they are entitled to receive after the death of the deceased-appellant. In the circumstances, according to them, there is likelihood of their success in the appeal.
As to the reason for delay, the learned counsel points out that earlier under some misunderstanding of the relevant provisions of law application under I.A.No. 1770 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for substituting them in place of deceased-appellant. Further submission is that realizing that the prayer for substitution was not entertainable in such appeal and that he correct procedure was to file a petition u/s 394(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioners have filed another petition under aforesaid I.A.No. 2062 of 2010. Learned counsel further submits that due to some confusion and misunderstanding such petition u/s 482 was filed earlier and realizing the mistake a correct petition under correct provision of law has been filed with relevant prayer for permission to prosecute this appeal on behalf of deceased-appellant. Learned counsel says that it was all due to this that some delay was caused in filing the instant I.A.No. 2062 of 2010 with prayer for permission to 3 prosecute this appeal.
In the facts and circumstances, I feel it just and proper to condone the delay in the filing of I.A.No. 2062 of 2010. Therefore, the delay is condoned. As to the prayer as made under this I.A., I find that the petitioners have just and good reasons for the prayer and, therefore, permission is accorded to the petitioners to prosecute this appeal on behalf of deceased-appellant.
The I.A. is, accordingly, allowed.
Jay/ (C. M . Prasad, J.)