Sundar vs State Of U.P.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4983 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 353 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Sundar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- B. Narayan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

This appeal is reported to be filed beyond time by 91 days.

It has been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application that the appellant is posted in CRPF at Jammu. The trial court has awarded sentence of depositing a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine one month rigorous imprisonment has been awarded. After depositing the fine the appellant joined his duty. As he could not get leave he could not file the appeal before this Court within time. Only after getting leave he has filed this appeal. Therefore there is no deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in filing the appeal and the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

It is further contended that the co-accused, Vishambhar has already preferred the appeal before this Court in which while the record has been summoned he has been released on bail by the another Bench of this Court. Since the record has already been summoned he could not apply for the copy of the impugned judgment, therefore the filing of the certified copy may also be exempted.

Learned AGA has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The delay condonation application is allowed. Let the appeal be treated within time. Filing of the certified copy of the impugned judgment is hereby exempted. The application for exemption for filing the impugned judgment is allowed.

Office is directed to give regular number to this appeal and put up this case along with the Criminal Appeal No.1252 of 2013, Vishambhar Vs. State of U.P. on 13th August, 2013 along with the record.

Order Date :- 7.8.2013

Mustaqeem.