* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. Appeal No. 1330/2011
Date of Decision : 05.03.2012
BABU @ RAJ KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.03.2011 and the order on sentence dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty for an offence under Section 392/394/397 IPC and sentencing him to seven years of imprisonment. Apart from fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was further to undergo sentence of six months. The appellant was held guilty under Section 394 IPC, which was an aggravated form of Section 392 IPC. It was observed that under Section 394 IPC the prescribed minimum punishment is of seven years. Similarly, under Section 397 IPC, the maximum sentence of seven years is Crl.A.No. 1330/2011 Page 1 of 3 prescribed and as no mitigating circumstances had been pointed out, therefore, he was sentenced to a maximum of seven years imprisonment.
2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 176 days. It has been stated that the delay was purely bona fide and unintentional which was caused because of delay in obtaining the papers and preparation of the appeal. No cogent justification for delay has been given, which may constitute 'sufficient cause' within the definition of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that the appellant has already undergone a sentence of seven years, and presently, he is undergoing sentence of 10 years in another case, which also likely to be completed in six months time.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record including the nominal roll of the appellant.
5. The appellant has already undergone sentence imposed in the present case in respect of FIR No.17/2005, under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC, registered by P.S. Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Entertaining the present appeal is only an academic exercise and more so when the appellant himself has stated that there is a delay of 176 days for which no reasonable explanation Crl.A.No. 1330/2011 Page 2 of 3 has been given.
6. I, accordingly, feel that the appellant has not been able to explain any convincing reason for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, which may constitute a sufficient cause within the definition of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and accordingly, his appeal is time barred and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J MARCH 05, 2012 KP Crl.A.No. 1330/2011 Page 3 of 3