Court No. - 40 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 717 of 2009 Petitioner :- Nand Kishore And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- A.C. Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard Sri A.C.Srivastava learned counsel for revisionists and
learned AGA appearing for the State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this application in revision
is being finally disposed of at the admission stage without calling for any
counter affidavit.
It appears that the revisionists were convicted by judgement dated 23.9.09
under Section 198 of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in
Case No.380 of 1997 Police Station Loni District Ghaziabad. Against
judgement of conviction , the revisionist preferred a revision under Section
397(1) Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad alongwith an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 7 days
in filing the appeal.
By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad has rejected
the application moved on behalf of the revisionists under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act and the Criminal appeal as barred by time.
Learned counsel for the revisionists stated that the revisionists had
satisfactorily explained the delay of 7 days in filing the Criminal appeal
against the judgement of the Special Judicial Magistrate / Pargana Magistrate
Ghaziabad but the court below erroneously rejected the same without
examining the merits of the grounds on which the delay condonation was
sought only for the reason that the revisionist who were on interim bail after
conviction had failed to surrender before the court even after the period of
interim bail had expired. He further submitted that it was incumbent upon the
court below to have examined the grounds on which delay condonation had
been sought and return a finding thereon.
Learned AGA appearing for the State very fairly conceded that the order
passed by the court below is a hypertechnical order.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned
order I am of the opinion that the court below has not dealt with the
application moved on behalf of the revisionists under Section 5 of Limitation
Act in proper perspective.
The law is settled that while dealing with the delay condonation application
the courts should be liberal and adopt justice oriented approach. It is also well
settled that the rules of procedure are designed to promote the ends of justice
rather than to throttle the same.
There is nothing in the impugned order which may indicate that the court
below had examined the reasons on which the revisionists had sought the
condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the judgement of conviction.
For the aforesaid reasons this application in revision is allowed. The order
dated 17.12.2009 passed by District Judge Ghaziabad,in Csse No.323/09 is
hereby set aside.
It is directed that the court below shall reconsider and decide the revisionists’
application filed by him under Section 5 Limitation Act on merits, strictly in
accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above
within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order before him.
It is further provided that the revisionists shall surrender/appear before the
court concerned within a week from today and in case they apply for
bail/interim bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided by the
court concerned on the same day.
Order Date :- 12.1.2010
cps