Shivkumar Miri vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5248 Chatt

                                        -1-



                                                                         NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             CRR No. 113 of 2022
      Shivkumar Miri S/o P.R. Miri, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bhatgaon,
       Bilaigarh, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District :
       Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ---- Applicant
                                    Versus
     1.

State Of Chhattisgarh, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Nohit Kumar Saket, S/o Ramnath Saket, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Durumgarh, Sarsiwa, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Non-applicants

For Applicant - Shri Arham Siddiqui, Advocate.

For State/Non-applicant No.1 - Shri Lalit Jangde, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18-08-2022

1. The applicant and non-applicant No.2 were tried for commission of

offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC in Criminal Case

No.161/2016. The allegation against the applicant and other co-accused was

that they collected the money from complainant and some other persons for

providing job in Government institution. The FIR was registered against the

applicant and the co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 420

read with Section 34 of the IPC. Charge sheet was filed. Witnesses were

examined and learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence acquitted

the applicant and co-accused/non-applicant No.2 vide judgment dated 26-07-

2019 by giving them benefit of doubt.

2. The State preferred appeal against the judgment of acquittal before

learned Sessions Court Baloda-Bazar along with application for condonation of

delay as there was delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before learned

Sessions Court.

3. Learned Sessions Court allowed the application for condonation of delay

vide order dated 10-01-2020 and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

Thereafter, the applicant challenged the order passed by learned

Sessions Court dated 10-01-2020 by filing Criminal Revision No.411/2020

before this High Court and vide order dated 17-03-2020 the order dated 10-01-

2020 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the learned

Sessions Court with direction to grant opportunity of hearing to the applicant

while considering the application for condoantion of delay. The applicant and

non-applicant No.2 appeared before the learned Sessions Court on 04-01-

2022 and after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties,

learned Sessions Court allowed the application for condonation of delay.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned Sessions Court

in a very cryptic manner and without assigning sufficient reason has allowed

the application for condonation of delay which is contrary to well settled

principle of law. The learned Sessions Court ought to have rejected the

application for condonation of delay along with the appeal preferred by the

State.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the

proposal was sent to the State and after obtaining permission from the

competent authority the appeal was preferred and the delay of 110 days was

bonafide and it cannot be said inordinate. He prays for dismissal of the criminal

revision preferred by the applicant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The applicant was acquitted from the charges of Section 420 of the IPC

giving benefit of doubt. The amount of cheating was Rs.10,90,000/- The State

took decision to prefer appeal and after collecting documents and obtaining

permission the appeal was preferred by delay of 110 days. On 10-01-2020 the

application for condonation of delay was filed by the State along with the memo

of appeal and the application for condonation of delay was allowed by learned

Sessions Court. The order dated 10-01-2020 was challenged before this Court

in Criminal Revision No.411/2020. Learned Sessions Court was directed to

grant opportunity to the applicant before passing any order on the application

for condonation of delay. It appears from the impugned order that learned

Session Court after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the applicant,

has allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the memo of

appeal moved by the State.

In this case earlier delay was condoned by learned Sessions Court and

again the same has been condoned by learned Sessions Court after affording

sufficient opportunity. It is well settled law that the courts should take liberal

approach while considering the application for condonation of delay. The delay

of 110 days caused in preferring appeal by the State cannot be said inordinate

looking to the reasons assigned in the application.

8. As a fallout and consequence of above discussion, the criminal revision

preferred by the applicant is devoid of merits. The learned Sessions Court has

not committed any illegality in allowing the application for condonation of delay.

Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Aadil