Delhi High Court
Aga Jafar Mirza & Anr vs State & Ors on 7 January, 2011
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.01.2011
+ CRL.M.A. 18517/2010 in CRL.A. 596/2010
AGA JAFAR MIRZA & ANR ... Appellants
versus
STATE & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr Abdul Sattar
For the Respondent No.1 : Ms Richa Kapur
For the Respondent No. 2 : Ms Jyoti Gupta
For the Respondent No. 3 : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? No
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing
the appeal. The appellant No. 1 (Aga Jafar Mirza) is the son-in-law of the
deceased Shamshul Hasan and the appellant No. 2 (Khurshid Begum) is the
wife of the deceased. This appeal had been filed by the appellant No. 1 and
then the appellant No. 2, that is, the wife of the deceased was impleaded by
an order of this Court on 14.12.2010.
2. The respondent No.2 (Nafees Ahmed) and the respondent No.3
(Shakeel @ Ghanti) were charged with the murder of the deceased and
acquitted vide the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2010. The appellant No.
1 had filed the appeal claiming to be a victim in terms of the proviso to
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Code'). Even though the son-in-law is not a legal heir as per
Muslim Law and hence a victim in strict terms, since the appellant No. 2,
who is the wife of the deceased and a legal heir was impleaded in the appeal
by an order of this Court, the objection of the respondents that the appeal
had not been filed by a victim no longer survives. The wife of the deceased
being a legal heir is a victim within the proviso to Section 372 of the Code
and can file an appeal against acquittal.
3. Today itself, in the case of Kareemul Hajazi v. State [CRL.A.
No.940/2010], while allowing the condonation of delay application
(CRL.M.A. No.13541/2010) by an order, this court held that the reasonable
period of limitation within which a victim must file an appeal under the
proviso to Section 372 of the Code is 60 days from the date of the impunged
judgment.
4. The main issue that arises for consideration in the present
application is - whether the delay ought to be condoned? Considering the
period of limitation to be 60 days, there is a delay of 25 days in the filing of
the appeal by the appellant. We feel that because no period of limitation
had been prescribed by the legislature and that it was only by virtue of the
recent decision of this Court in Kareemul Hajazi v. State (supra) that a
reasonable period of limitation of 60 days from the date of the order
appealed from was ascertained, it would not be fair and just if the victim's
appeal is thrown out on the point of limitation. There was sufficient reason
for the appellant to be confused with regard to the period of limitation.
Apart from anything else, this ground itself is sufficient for us to condone
the delay of 25 days in the filing of this appeal. As a result, this application
is allowed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MANMOHAN SINGH, J
JANUARY 07, 2011
SR
