Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Vijay Pandit And Ors on 23 October, 2013
Author: Narendra Nath Tiwari
Bench: Narendra Nath Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.774 of 2012
The State of Jharkhand. ......Appellant.
Versus
Vijay Pandit & Ors. ....... Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. P. BHATT
For the Appellant : Mr. T. N. Verma, A.P.P.
For the Respondents : None
I.A. (Cr.) No.1052 of 2012:
03/23.10.2013: In this interlocutory application, the appellant has prayed for condonation of 18 days' delay in filing the appeal.
It has been stated that after the impugned judgment was passed, certified copy of the same was obtained and it was placed before the concerned Public Prosecutor. According to his opinion, the sentence awarded against the convicts was not sufficient and that part of the order of sentence was erroneous. He advised to file appeal against the order of sentence. Thereafter, the copy of the judgment and entire record were referred to the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand. The Law Department sought opinion of learned Advocate General, who after perusal of the record recorded his opinion, accepting the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and, thereafter, the file was handed over to learned A.P.P. on 30th April, 2012 for filing the appeal. Memo of appeal was thereafter prepared and was filed on 3rd July, 2012. It has been submitted that there was no intentional delay or laches on the part of the appellant and the delay was under the said official process. Learned A.P.P. submitted that if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not heard on merit, the State shall be seriously prejudiced.
2 Notices were issued to the respondents, but in spite of service of the same, nobody appeared to oppose this application.
Considering the reasons explained in this application, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has been able to explain the delay and the delay was not deliberate and the appellant could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under the aforesaid circumstance. This interlocutory application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
I.A. (Cr.) No. 1052 of 2012 is disposed of.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) (P. P. Bhatt, J.) Sanjay/