Gujarat High Court
Imran @ Imlo @ Kaliya Hasammiya ... vs State Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2927/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2927 of 2024
==========================================================
IMRAN @ IMLO @ KALIYA HASAMMIYA RAJAKMIYA KADRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/03/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] RULE returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.
[2.0] By way of present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the petitioner -
accused is seeking quashing of the order dated 08.02.2024
passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in
Criminal Misc. Application No.158 of 2024, which was filed by the
petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation
of delay caused in preferring the conviction appeal.
[3.0] The petitioner - accused came to be convicted by the
learned 14th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot for the
offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 vide judgment dated 06.04.2022 in the proceedings of
Criminal Case No.8209/2020 and petitioner - accused is ordered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2927/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years with
fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further
simple imprisonment of six months is imposed. The petitioner
accused preferred criminal appeal against the judgment dated
06.04.2022 along with application being Criminal Misc.
Application No.158 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of 616 days caused in preferring the
criminal appeal. The learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot
has been pleased to dismiss the application being CR.MA No.158
of 2024 vide the impugned order on the ground that though
petitioner is under trial prisoner, there is a provision to avail legal
aid service in jail and no reason explaining sufficient cause for the
delay has been stated in the application and hence, delay
condonation application is dismissed. Except this, no any reason
is assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Hence, present petition.
[4.0] Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP
for respondent - State of Gujarat.
[5.0] At the outset it is worth to mention that the appeal is a
statutory right and present petitioner, who is under trial
prisoner, as of right also can ask for legal aid and it is the duty of
the legal aid committee and District Legal Services Authority to
timely review the proceedings of Under Trial Prisoners and
provide for legal aid on regular basis including their rights and
speedy and effective hearing of their appeals and respective
cases. Merely because accused is Under Trial Prisoner and legal
aid is available in jail, is not a ground to dismiss the delay
condonation application. Such observation is nothing but against
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2927/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
the settled principle of law and directives of State as regards
right of accused and such observation clearly reflects inefficient
mechanism of District Legal Services Authority and lack of proper
supervision and timely and effective implementation of
benevolent scheme of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
and State Legal Services Authority (SALSA) and other directive
principles of State policy and mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court
and various pronouncements. Be that as it may, appeal is a
statutory right. If on such flimsy ground, delay condonation
application is refused, it would amount to dismissal of appeal at
the threshold and due to refusal of such delay condonation
application, some times meritorious case may be dismissed at the
threshold.
[6.0] Considering the aforesaid fact, with a view to do substantial
justice to the parties, as petitioner is an Under Trial Prisoner, this
Court is of considered view that there was sufficient ground for
the learned Additional Sessions Judge to condone the delay
caused in preferring appeal by the petitioner - accused against
his conviction and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought
not to have taken such pedantic approach while considering
delay condonation application and that too of an Under Trial
Prisoner.
[7.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, present petition is allowed.
Resultantly, impugned order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the
learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Criminal Misc.
Application No.158 of 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Delay of 616 days caused in preferring conviction appeal against
the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned trial Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2927/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/03/2024
undefined
hereby condoned. The learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot is hereby
directed to register the appeal preferred by the accused. Rule is
made absolute accordingly.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
