Babu @ Raj Kumar vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 1545 Del

*             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

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

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